Antigone’s moral problem

The cast receives te applause after the performance
of Stravinsky’s Oedipus Rex and Moussa’s Antigone
in the Music Theatre in Amsterdam. Antigone is the
woman in the middle in light dress.

Recently the Dutch National Opera (DNO) performed two oratorios based on Greek mythology and classical plays: Igor Stravinsky’s Oedipus Rex and Samy Moussa’s Antigone. Oedipus Rex is about fate and deals with the question: Can we escape fate, and can we take control of our own destiny? In modern terms we would say: Does free will exist? It’s an eternal and still much debated problem. However, here I want to raise Antigone’s moral question, treated in Moussa’s oratorio.
For the story, I follow the version on the DNO website:
Eteocles and Polynices have agreed to rule the Greek city of Thebes jointly but they end up fighting one another. Eteocles has seized sole power and Polynices has gathered troops to attack Thebes. The battle ends in a duel in which the two brothers kill one another. Creon, the new King of Thebes, tries to restore order. He arranges a ceremonial burial for Eteocles but forbids the burial of Polynices’ corpse on pain of death. He wants the body of the brother who attacked his own city to rot away on the battlefield – a cruel punishment that deprives Polynices of the possibility of finding rest in the Underworld after his death. Antigone, the sister of Eteocles and Polynices, cannot bear this violation of her sacred duty to her brother Polynices. She secretly arranges a symbolic funeral. Creon’s soldiers see this and report the incident to the king. Creon condemns Antigone to death and confines her in a tomb that is bricked up. Warned by the seer Tiresias, he has Antigone’s tomb opened, but she has already hanged herself.
The tragedy of Antigone deals with a question that has been around for as long as there is authority or at least as long as there are states: Should we follow the rules of the state or of the authority that is superior to us, or should we follow our own private morals and let our own consciousness speak? I’ll call it Antigone’s problem. It is the problem of the conscientious objector of compulsory military service, but it is also the problem of the official who gets the order from his section chief or directly from the minister to implement a certain law, even in case the official thinks that this law is unreasonable and leads to innocent victims, as in the Dutch childcare benefits scandal. But Antigone’s problem is not only a possible moral conflict between state and individual but it can happen everywhere where authority is at stake, for instance when for moral reasons an employee refuses to perform a task set by his employer. Moreover, the consequences of refusing a state law or, for instance, a private order by an employer are not futile but serious, like Antigone’s refusal to follow Creon’s order. In addition, the refusal is not simply a practical affair but it is a moral decision; it is based on a conscientious objection. The right to follow your conscience is at stake.
Many thinkers have racked their brains about Antigone’s problem, but nobody has found a real solution. I even think that a general solution does not exist. Take the example of conscientious objection of compulsory military service. In case of a war or a threatening war against a nation adult men – why usually not also women? – of a certain age are summoned “to do their duty” and to join the army and fight the enemy, if necessary in the front line, where you directly confront the enemy and possibly must kill the enemy. This was so, for instance, during World War I and II; during the Cold War; and now it is so in Ukraine and Russia. At first sight, this may seem obvious, but a substantial number of men try to escape their “duty” for several reasons. These men are often considered “unpatriotic” or “cowards” by others, whatever these words may mean. However, it is not as simple as that. For simplicity, I ignore practical and pure political reasons and focus on moral reasons for the refusal to serve. One moral reason is based on the need to destroy the enemy; concretely, on killing humans. In civil life killing is considered immoral, disgusting or which word you want to use. It is beyond all limits and there must be good grounds for doing so, which always must be justified afterwards. Normally, killing a human leads to a heavy penalty, if not the death penalty in many countries. Then, in war, it suddenly is different. Here I must think of a saying of Sebastian Castellio (1515-1563), criticizing Calvin who justified the burning on the stake of a heretic, which I discussed long ago in a blog: “Killing a man is not defending a doctrine, it is killing a man”. Is it different if we change this quote into “Killing a man is not defending a country, it is killing a man”? And then not only once, but often regularly, as Guy Chapman, a soldier in the First World War, wrote: “If you start a man killing, you cannot turn him off like a machine”. (see here) Is it strange then that men called up for military service have a moral problem, because what is forbidden and rejected in daily life now must be done in war? That what normally goes against human feelings and morality now is allowed, no often ordered, to do? This has nothing to do with lacking patriotic feelings and with cowardice but everything with Antigone’s problem; it is a problem of conscience. This doesn’t mean that there may be no real reasons to defend a country militarily.
Sometimes a practical solution can be found for Antigone’s problem. As for my example, many countries have laws that leaves room for conscientious objectors of military service. However, as said, there are no general solutions for the problem. Just therefore it is important to give it much attention and to be open to the problem and to try to find practical solutions, when necessary.