Do you think that the Estragon-Vladamir pair is superior to the Pozzo-Lucky pair?
Estragon and Vladimir have a very sad existence. Their days are defined by the endless waiting for this Mr. Godot who never shows. They never actually enter or exit the stage, despite threatening to, and they never take any truly definitive action. They both spout philosophy and ideas, but all amounts to a sort of emptiness.
Pozzo and Lucky are rather the opposite. They enter and exit the stage; they have direction. Lucky has his monologue which is full of nothing, truly, but he has a purpose. He serves Pozzo. Pozza has a purpose, as well, as master of Lucky. Lucky and Pozzo are defined
So here is the dilemma: Pozzo and Lucky are defined, true, but their relationship is rather immoral by normal human standards, especially those of Irish society in the first half of the 20th century. There is an inequality of status; one is slave to another.
However, some might argue that Vladimir and Estragon are no better off than Pozzo and Lucky. Is their relationship as immoral as Pozzo and Lucky's simply because they do not take action, they do not take responsibility for their lives, and they allow themselves to be disappointed time and time? These three ideas are huge themes in the works of the existentialists.
So are you going to write your paper according to the traditional values of morality or according to the values of the existentialists ? The answer is arguable both ways, but make sure you back your ideas up with fact.