‘To Do a Great Right, Do a Little Wrong’: The Merchant of Venice and Its Ethical Challenges

Abstract

When Bassanio urges Portia to break the law in order to thwart Shylock— ‘to do a great right, do a little wrong” (4.1.213)— she at first refuses, on the grounds that to do wrong is always immoral; but despite her words, her actions show her ready and willing to do just that. Critics usually explain Portia’s actions with reference to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and the principle of equity—an open-handed, individualised approach to justice when hard legal questions exceed the scope of the law; but the misalignment between Portia’s words and her actions indicates that the question of justifying any ‘little wrong’ with ‘the greater right’ is more complex than it may at first seem, particularly if the ‘greater right’ is defined by one’s own interests. This signals the presence in the play of a different, non-Aristotelian ethical framework: that of Nicolò Machiavelli’s post-Epicurean teleological utilitarianism. Shakespeare’s moral considerations in The Merchant of Venice are compelling precisely because they routinely juxtapose Machiavellian utilitarian ethics with principles of deontological ethics, to explore a crucial question: is expediency more apt in real life, than principles not defined by expediency? Applying this question to the main themes of The Merchant of Venice— cultural and religious difference, stereotyping, discrimination, scapegoating, gender equality and spin, themes no less relevant and divisive in Shakespeare’s time than they are in our own— holds particular didactic value in the twenty-first century classroom.