The justification of war for Macbeth is that he want to achieve victory and appears as a brave worrier in front of Duncan, but his political ambition lead to his destruction. Therefore, he does not possesses the quality of piety. He was not qualified to be a king because in order to become a king, first he needed to be a tyrant and use his power and act violently. His ambition drove him to turn to tyranny because a flaw in his character that leads to his tragic death besides the death of other characters. Psychologically, he is different from any villain in Shakespeare’s works because the crimes he committed including the killing of the king and Macduff’s family [although he did not do it by his own hands] made him feel the sense of guilt. This sense made him think that his hands are covered with blood. Therefore, blood in the novel symbolizes Macbeth’s guilt which makes him feel that the blood on his hand cannot be washed cleaned. In a way this excludes him from possessing the quality of piety in the play. This brings the theme of the corrupting power of unchecked ambition. The destruction in the novel happened because the characters do not check their ambitions through moral constrains. They only think of what they desire and try to get it through the use of power and violence. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth clearly present this theme. This make me think of Macbeth as the antagonist. He is the personification of greed and evil. He kills the king and takes the throne. He did not stop there but he continued to murder other characters to protect himself from being discovered.
Here on Google’s Earth, in Northeast Asia, the big airlines with unchecked ambition are China Southern (the biggest), Air China (highest value), Japan Airlines (most profitable) and Cathay Pacific (most prestige).
Unchecked Ambition in Frankenstein - Prezi
Philotas is justifiably acclaimed for elegance of diction and regularity of meter, qualities generally typical of Daniel's verse. However, his tendency to perceive an issue from more than one perspective—a trait which lends depth to many of his poems—works to disadvantage here. The examination of political morality and abuses of government at times is contradictory and structurally deficient. Although it is clear from the dedication to Prince Henry and the concluding apology that Daniel meant Philotas generally to condemn unchecked ambition which leads to civil disorder and to affirm the providential course of history, the equivocal nature of many of the issues and characters results in diffuseness and ambiguity rather than the complexity which Daniel sought.