At first glance, the system of ethics presented by Euripides in his masterpiece Medea appears to parallel the systems found in many other tragedies of ancient Greek theater. This system of helping friends and harming enemies, which occurs in many plays by tragedians, attempts to rationalize excessive violence and hostility (Blundell 1989). This system, however, falls short for Medea, as Medea is forced to decide on a course of action that will either harm her friends or help her enemies. Therefore, both Medea and Jason must be driven by an alternative motivation, which turns out to be a utilitarian position where all that matters is personal success and happiness, regardless of the consequences. These ethical nuances, however, contrast greatly with Sophocles' ethical standards depicted in Antigone. Through the examination and interpretation of the actions of the main characters in Medea and Antigone, it is highlighted that Euripides finds Sophocles' system inadequate. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Medea finds herself in a situation where, regardless of her actions, she and her friends will suffer and her enemies will be helped. If she kills her children she will harm her enemy Jason, but she will be forced to endure the pain of having killed her own offspring. On the contrary, if she decides not to kill her children and continue to live as Jason's wife, she will not harm her enemies in any way and will have to bear the misfortune of Jason taking another wife. Medea recognizes the difficulty of her situation but decides that it is better to take action and endure the pain than to give in to her maternal desires, saying, "Do I want to be laughed at for leaving my enemies unpunished?" (Medea 1049 – 1050).Euripides places Medea in a unique situation. Due to his circumstances, the traditional ethical system applicable in most other plays falls apart. A more fundamental system of motivation is needed – in this case utilitarianism. Medea must adopt the idea that the best course of action is the one that best promotes her self-interest. She decides that avenging the shame Jason brought on her by bringing a mistress into the house is more important than killing her children. Hurting Jason is worth the price of murder. Medea's act further subverts conventional ethics because she is a woman. In ancient Greece, women were often considered second-class citizens, needed only for procreation, child-rearing, and the care of a man's home. As he departs from the expected role, some scholars, most notably Helene P. Foley, argue that through his action he becomes a man in every sense except the physical (2001). This drastic change is only possible through Medea's adoption of a new set of ethical values. Medea also displays a utilitarian stance when formulating a deal with Aigeus. He promises that in exchange for refuge in Athens, he will give fertility to Aigeus. It may seem like she's doing it to help her friend, but in reality she's simply looking for her own safety. The safe haven provided by Aigeus allows Medea to kill her children and avoid retaliation. Jason employs a similar utilitarian system of ethics when he brings a new lover, a daughter of Creon, into Medea's home. By marrying Creon's daughter, he ensures a political and financial link between his house and that of the king of Corinth. Jason's actions explicitly depict a utilitarian point of view, as he knowingly brings misfortune upon Medea to ensure his own safety and the financial well-being of his children. In contrast to Euripides, Sophocles illustrates the, 2002.