Why Is A Doll's House Unethical

In “A Doll’s House”, Torvald has been quite vocal with his opinion towards hereditary characteristics and moral corruption throughout the play. Admittedly, one’s unethical actions can have an affect on someone else’s behavior and innate habits can lead to complications. However, not all inherited traits are deplorable and one’s actions may be for a cogent reason; therefore, Torvald’s view on these issues is inapt since the circumstances have more than one side. Fundamentally, it’s clear to state that the world isn’t black and white, but rather various colors and several shades at that. In other words, anything someone does is for a reason, there’s more to it than meets the eye. For instance, from hindsight, Nora forging her father’s signature is unlawful, yet she had to do it for the sake of her family; if she hadn’t broken the law, then her family would’ve probably been struggling more than they had to. Furthermore, it’s not that the person themselves are morally corrupted, but it’s for the fact that the action itself is unethical that gives them the label. In fact, one would say they did what they had to do for the greater good. Thus, her actions not being poison to her children for it was for a good cause.
Although, children can get adverse qualities from their parents that’s not always the case. For example, Torvald comments on Nora’s like for spending, that she must get that from her father, for he too spent his money quickly and frequently. Nevertheless, if Nora hadn’t had her habit of managing her money as well as spending it, she wouldn’t have had the money to pay off the loan she had gotten from Krogstad, which was used to save his life. Hence, if you don’t know the whole story don’t tell any of it, because in this case her “poor” habit was what saved them from the crisis they were