The play of Antigone reflects a state where one is in between complying with the stated laws and defying them. In most cases, there are those who would rather act against their will but instead ensure that they do observe all of the laws that are stated. In the play, King Oedipus passes on living two sons, Polynices and Eteocles who fight each other for ascension to the throne (Miller p49). It is at the stage that Creon, the two brothers’ uncle decides to assume kingship after the passing on of the two brothers (Schavrien p150). The play does bring out a time when one is in between having to uphold the stated laws and defying them. There are those who would decide to observe all the rules as has been portrayed by Creon. Also, there those who would choose to uphold their personal values and instead act as they feel is right even if the law does state otherwise. In today’s world, such instances are also common where there are those who have chosen to defy the law whereas other has taken to uphold the law. Sometimes it could be necessary to break the law for as long as one feels what they are doing is morally right. In the same regard, Antigone did right in breaking the law by going ahead to bury his brother’s body in defiance of Creon’s orders.
Antigone was right in the decision that she took to give her brother a respectable send-off. The death of Polynices and Eteocles was a fight out of the need to ascend to the throne. The fact that they were fighting and died in the event of the same did not warrant the action taken by Creon in deciding that one of them is not given a ceremonial send off. Creon did act in an irrational manner by choosing to pass an order that Polynices not be given a burial. The same was not justified since the law was made not to complicate the lives of those who are under it but to ensure that it brings sanity in those expected to abide by the same. There are instances when the law fails to address the contemporary issues at hand. As for the case of the two brothers, it is evident that they were people who need respect by virtue of their royal lineage. However, Creon clearly disrespects the same by deciding to treat one in an unfair manner as compared to the other. If it could have been justified for him, not to bury the Polynices, he would have suggested the same treatment for Eteocles. From the fight of the two, it cannot be clear on who is right or wrong. However, the fact does remain that they were both sons of King Oedipus and ought to have been treated in a respectful manner. Creon does overlook the same and instead decides to disrespect the rule of morality in how to treat the dead.
In relating the story to the issue of Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, sometimes it is mandatory to break the law for as long as it is necessary and could bring to light some negative vices that may be happening. For example, in the case of WikiLeaks, there is information that often depicts some of the government officials in a negative way. The cheap deals engaged by some of them do come to light. The public has right to access the information for as long as it helps in stemming out the ill vice that does happen in the society. Most of the corrupt government officials have been found to be engaging in malicious activities that are not welcome. However, the law would require that such information not be made public for the sake of the public. It often has a public interest, and such information need not be made public. However, Julian Assange does violate the laws and instead makes the information public (Marlin). It is just as long as the issue at hand could be addressed by making the information public; then it would be alright to have the information public. Particularly, there is the case where he made public the personal information of the CIA director. In the event that the information released could relate to a controversial issue then it would be justified to have the information made public. What is of significant importance is that the law should be broken if it would bring a common good for the entire population.
There are instances when it can be mandatory to break the law. Such times could encompass a scenario where the law that is applicable does violate the morality surrounding the entire issue. For example, ordinarily, in the event that one was to pass on, it is moral to have them be given a fair send off that does respect them as human beings. It could have been necessary for Creon to bury Polynices in a manner that not only identifies him as the son of the ill-fated King Oedipus but as a human being. However, according to the fact that is performed by Glorious Essays writers, he does overlook the same and instead decides that he be left out so that the vulture and other creatures feeds on his body. It does call for the need to ensure that Polynices faces treatment as a human being. Creon chooses instead to uphold the requirements of the law and treats one of the brothers as being on wrong.
Antigone did make a right decision when it came to how she did handle the issue in a morally acceptable (Jack, Rand and Dana). One would view her actions as immoral and in defiance of the rule of law. However, on careful analysis, the same was right since she did what she felt was right and could be in the interest of everyone. Her actions can be confirmed to be right as per the prophecy made by Prophet Teiresias. The blind prophet does tell Creon that the gods were not happy with the decision that he made and that it would be right if he ensured that the burial of the body is in the right way, and Antigone released from the living tomb. Even though Antigone did decide to break the law, morally it was justified. The same can be a confirmation of the prophecy brought by the blind man. If Antigone were wrong, then the gods could not have been angry with Creon. It is a reflection that the law can often be broken at any time it is deemed fit or does indicate the violation of the moral laws.
The law is meant to help provide guidance as to how individuals need to live their lives. However, it should not appear as if one is a slave to the laws that could have been set. There should be room to modify the code so that it can suit an individual situation at hand.