History has presented two different types of award that have both been extremely acceptable in their several civilizations. Christianity and the Bible put a great trade of accent on personal virtuousness. where one worries about themselves and non truly anything else. This is in direct contrast to other civilizations. nevertheless. where public virtuousness is a much more of import portion of society. In the dramaJulius Caesar. society wagess people who keep the whole in head as opposed to maintaining self in the most of import topographic point. The clang between public virtuousness and internal virtuousness is one that has created a personal battle for many work forces in both of these societies. every bit good as in today’s society.

In the Bible. those who followed Jesus Christ were urged to pattern personal virtuousness. as opposed to overall public virtuousness. Even Jesus himself was a living illustration of this. He was known to travel against the flow and in fact. that is what finally got him crucified. He went through his life prophesying his rules. which straight clashed with what the spiritual seniors were stating people at the clip. This goes against public virtuousness. because it caused a commotion within society and agitate up the order that was presently working in society.

That was unimportant to Jesus Christ. though. as his chief focal point was on internal pureness as opposed to looking out for the greater good. Still. his work did travel towards the greater good. though. That is the interesting paradox that exists within this illustration. Though Christ’s primary focal point was on internal virtuousness. the overall organic structure of his work was extremely focused on public virtuousness. This could non be evaluated until his work on Earth was finished. though. as from the surface. it appeared that Christ was a splitter. alternatively of a individual who brought people together for the chase of a great good.

A direct clang can be found if one looks at a narrative likeJulius Caesar. Caesar was a leader that was loved by the bulk of his people for the bulk of his clip in office. Finally. he had to be taken down. though. He was non making things as the leader of Rome that needed to be done in order to guarantee that the people of that country had a just shingle. Because they knew this. the members of the Roman Senate like Brutus and Marc Anthony took it upon themselves to take action. They did non concentrate on making the thing that was “right” . in respects to their ain personal virtuousness. Alternatively. they threw aside those personal considerations in order to make something for the greater good of society at big.

They assassinated Caesar in the most barbarous mode possible in order to protect the people of Rome. In the clip of Jesus. this would hold been looked upon with a great trade of disgust. even though they were really making something good for society. Since they would hold committed a personal wrong. basic Christian values would non hold looked kindly upon their actions. In Roman society. where public virtuousness was given precedency over internal virtuousness. they were heroes. though. Brutus was a liquidator by definition. but history looks upon him as a sympathetic and epic figure. This speaks chiefly to the differences in doctrine that existed during the two epochs.

These two illustrations are of import to understanding the clang that existed between the two thoughts. For the most portion. each epoch of clip allows for merely one of these theories when it comes to judging major events. It is really hard for people to maintain their internal virtuousness. while besides making something that exhibits public virtuousness. Alternatively. a pick must be made between the two.

Peoples must make up one’s mind if they want to maintain their ain internal holiness or do that which will profit society at big. In the instance of Jesus Christ. the internal virtuousness overcame any consideration of public virtuousness because the instructions of the Bible made it that manner. The clip of Julius Caesar and Brutus was ruled by a different codification. so history looks kindly on his actions in their range. This interesting paradox clearly shows how different societies view different actions in respects to their moral “goodness” .

Internal virtuousness and public virtuousness are two really different thoughts that were accepted in two really different times. Today’s society seems to hold an apprehension for both. whereas other times would merely let for one or the other. Today. regard can be found for people who keep the greater good in head when they take action. By contrast. those people who do what is right for themselves seem to acquire topographic points in today’s society. every bit good. The clang between the two is non about as strong or about as distinguishable today as it one time was. Still. there are times when people have to do a pick between the two types of virtuousness and in those times. the pick can order how history views their action.