¶ … Doll's House and Antigone Sophocles and Henrik Ibsen explore the philosophical discussion of judgment in Antigone and A Doll's House, respectively. In Antigone, the title character questions the right of leaders to judge strictly when she commits treason after burying her brother. The deciding factor in determining Ibsen's characters' fates in A Doll's House is a moral dilemma of the intent behind an act of fraud. Both Sophocles and Ibsen pass judgment on their characters, but show that the justice system may be flawed when motive and intent are not considered in the prosecution of crimes.

Antigone directly challenges the authority of King Creon when she says, "Your edict, King, was strong, but all your strength is weakness itself against the immortal laws of God. They are not merely now: they were, and shall be, operative forever, beyond man utterly." (Sophocles, Scene 2) This illustrates the primary conflict of the play: Antigone fighting against what she believes is an immoral judgment. Antigone is essentially a philosophical piece with debate and argument rather than character development and plot. Sophocles' characters are simplistic and archetypal, allowing him to pass judgment on all of the real people whom they may represent.

Ibsen, on the other hand, develops the characters and the conflict of A Doll's House over the course of the play, rather than relying on exposition like Sophocles. In the first discussion...

Linde, Ibsen does not reveal the exact nature of the issue, but the justification is explicit, with the presentation of the question: "is it imprudent to save your husband's life?" (Act I) Saving a life is considered an act of heroism, so the assumption is that the audience will take Nora's side. When the nature of Nora's crime is revealed, the audience then confronts a moral dilemma. Although the audience believes that Nora's actions were justified, they were also illegal. When Krogstad asks Nora if she believed that she had defrauded him, she says no, which makes Krogstad's claim that his own offense was "nothing more or nothing worse than what you have done." (Act I) Ibsen is asserting the idea that "the law cares nothing about motives" and that regardless of whether or not the law is just, it is "the law by which you will be judged" (Act I). Both Ibsen and Sophocles argue that in order to be just, motivation must be taken into account.
Nora's character presents clear arguments that represent moral absolutes. For example, she says, "no, it's impossible! I did it for love's sake" (Act I) which shows that her actions are ruled by her emotions. Ibsen, like Sophocles, argues that the basis of laws are more important than the laws themselves. Sophocles' treatment of law is similar to Ibsen's, though he uses the laws of the gods rather than intuitive morals. Frank Jevons writes: "The lesson as well as the art of Sophocles is that man's fate, though determined by the gods, depends on his actions, and his actions on himself and his circumstances" (60-61).

Antigone has a strong sense of morality, stating that, "there are honors due all the dead" (Sophocles, Scene 2). The arguments of those opposite Antigone and Nora are shown to be flawed. For instance, Creon argues that, "Whoever is chosen to govern should be obeyed -- Must be obeyed, in all things, great and small, Just and unjust!" (Scene 3) This shows that he values his own authority over true justice, which contradicts his earlier statement of principles. His short tempered treatment of the Sentry, Haemon, and Tiresias show Creon's character flaws and thus devalue his authority. In…