Searching For Meaning In Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar'

In theory, the means at which one creates will lead to a justifiable ending. This concept of the ends justifying the means may simply be a way for individuals to excuse their negative actions by claiming that they were necessary to bring about a greater good. Ayn Rand, a Russian-born philosopher made a rather intellectual remark that, “The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others.” After all, isn’t it hypocritical to invalidate someone’s right while fighting to acquire your own? In Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, the final outcome lacked justification; any potential justifications were in vain, as well as one’s morals were twisted in order to complete a tasking duty. Perhaps the question wasn’t if the end would justify the means, but how one may justify their actions. Cassius, a member of the senate, who had been pushing the plan to terminate Caesar, had clearly been searching for a justifiable reason to kill Caesar:
Men at some time are masters of their fates. / The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, / But in ourselves that we are underlings. / 'Brutus' and 'Caesar'—what should be in that/ ‘Caesar’? / Why should that name be sounded more than yours? / Write them together, yours is as fair a name; / Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well; / Weigh them, it
However, Brutus lacked a drive for self-gain. After Cassius learned that Brutus would only tag along with the plan to kill Caesar if there was a justifiable reason for Caesar’s death, Cassius amplified his concern for the greater good of Rome’s government. Searching for a cause worthy of such a horrific crime, Cassius continued to build his argument of why the death of Julius Caesar would be beneficial for the people of