We all make mistakes. The difference between good and evil seems to be the gravity of these mistakes. Teiresias, however, believes that good men are those that recognize their mistakes and fix them. The only crime is being too proud to admit your mistake. While I agree that good men admit and attempt to fix their mistakes, I don’t believe that the only crime is pride. In U.S. history, the U.S. made the mistake of removing thousands of Native Americans from their homes. They were forced to walk down the Trail of Tears in harsh conditions so they could make room for white settlers to move in. Later on, the U.S. admitted its mistake, and now there is land set aside for Native Americans to live on, and many of them receive money on their 18th birthday. The U.S. both admitted its mistake and attempted to repair it, but does this make the United States good? According to Teiresias, it does, but I think Teiresias is missing one key element: good men learn from their mistakes. The United States may have realized its wrongdoings, apologized, and attempted to repair them, but the U.S. did not learn. They did it again to the Japanese during World War II, sending them to internment camps and treating them badly, all because of their race. Later on, they apologized again, and compensated them. …show more content…
There’s something to be said about good intentions, but good intentions don’t do anything if your actions are bad. Looking at it Teiresias’s way, it would almost be better if you did it on purpose, because then you would be halfway done with his steps. All you would have to do is “repair the evil.” But it’s not like that. In the courts, motive in a murder is a big factor in deciding your sentence. If it was an accident, the punishment is better than if it was planned. Either way, it’s still bad, but if it was the former, then at least you had good intentions. Some people know their course is wrong, but continue on