French philosopher Alexis Carrel once said that "to what extent is any given man morally responsible for any given act? We do not know." It would seem that morality has forever been a liquid idea. What makes an action moral or immoral depends almost completely on the views of the person committing the action, and of the perceptions of those witness or victim to that action. Morality may also be viewed as a cultural concept. What may seem moral to the person committing the action could possibly be viewed as an atrocity by someone of a varying heritage. It seems that to both the Roman and Indian culture that the motivation behind an action can alter its morality, and that this easily malleable concept tends to favor those in power. Morality can also change depending on how it is applied to enemies, on how it is applied to women, and finally on how it is applied to self. Very clear examples of these paradoxes can be seen in the Indian epic Mahabharata and in Ovid's Metamorphoses. Such instances as the war between the Pandavas and the Kauruvas, and the amoral actions of the roman Gods and Goddesses illustrate this notion. Morality is a concept that has no set, clear meaning. Instead it can be viewed as nothing more than a concept that can be easily altered at any given time to better suit the whims and wishes of those attempting to find justification for their actions.
The first concept of morality that is easily altered is morality as it applies to one's enemies. For instance, extreme violence towards foes can be acceptable if it allows one to reach the desired goals. Throughout the Mahabharata this seems to be a rather prevalent idea. Peace should always be preached because peace presents a better social image than war mongering, but when it comes down to it, success by any means necessary is perfectly acceptable. This is true especially for the Kauruvas, which are depicted as the more amoral of the two groups.
