At first glance, the system of ethics presented by Euripides in his masterpiece Medea appears to parallel the systems found in several other theater tragedies ancient Greek. This system of helping friends and harming enemies, which recurs in many of the tragedians' works, attempts to rationalize excessive violence and hostility (Blundell 1989). This system fails Medea, however, because Medea is forced to decide on a course of action that will, in both directions, harm her friends and help her enemies. Therefore, both Medea and Jason must be motivated by an alternative motivation, which turns out to be a utilitarian position in which all that matters is personal success and happiness, regardless of the consequences. These ethical connotations, however, contrast greatly with Sophocles' ethical standards described in Antigone. Through an examination and interpretation of the actions of the main characters in Medea and Antigone, it is demonstrated that Euripides finds Sophocles' system inadequate. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Medea finds herself in a situation where, regardless of her actions, she and her friends will suffer and her enemies will be helped. If she kills her children, she will harm her enemy Jason, but she will be forced to endure the pain of murdering her own offspring. Conversely, if she decides not to kill her children and continue to live as Jason's wife, she will do no harm to his enemies and will have to endure the shame of Jason taking another wife. Medea recognizes the difficulty of her situation but decides that it is better to act and bear the pain than to give in to her maternal desires, saying, "Do I want to be laughed at for letting my enemies escape?" get it without any problem? (Medea 1049 – 1050). Euripides puts Medea in a unique situation. Due to his situation, the traditional ethical system applicable in most other plays breaks down. A more fundamental motivation system – in this case, utilitarianism – is needed. Medea must embrace the idea that the best course of action is the one that best serves her self-interest. She decides that avenging the shame Jason inflicted on her by bringing a mistress into the house is more important than killing her children. Hurting Jason is worth the price of murder. Medea's act further disrupts conventional ethics because she is a woman. During ancient Greek times, women were often considered second-class citizens, needed only for childbearing, raising children, and maintaining a man's household. Because she breaks from her expected role, some scholars, notably Helene P. Foley, argue that through her action she becomes a man in every sense other than physical (2001). This radical change is only possible because of Medea's adoption of a new set of ethical values. Medea also displays a utilitarian stance when she formulates an agreement with Aegeus. She promises that in exchange for refuge in Athens, she will give fertility to Aegeus. It may seem like she's doing this to help her friend, but in reality she's just looking out for her own safety. The refuge offered by Aigeus allows Medea to murder her children and avoid reprisals. Jason employs a similar system of utilitarian ethics when he brings a new mistress, a daughter of Creon, into Medea's house. By marrying Creon's daughter, he ensures a political and financial link between his house and that of the king of Corinth. Jason's actions explicitly portray a utilitarian point of view, as he consciously brings shame to Medea to ensure his own safety and the, 2002.