The Epic of Gilgamesh is so distant from any modern culture that it is difficult to make confident assertions about the social attitudes it appears to depict. Nonetheless, Gilgamesh is a deeply flawed individual by any standards, and the writer of the epic appears to be critical of him at many points. This is particularly true at the beginning of the poem, when the writer's criticism of Gilgamesh's tyrannical behavior is echoed by the people of Uruk and approved by the gods themselves.
Gilgamesh exhibits many of the characteristic faults of despotic rulers. He is lustful and regards all the women in his kingdom as his to prey upon. He is cruel, exhausting his people through forced labor projects. He is violent, imperious, and insatiable in his appetites. Even allowing for thousands of years of cultural difference, Gilgamesh is a terrible ruler.
Even after the coming of Enkidu, whose friendship greatly improves his character, Gilgamesh is open to criticism on many fronts. His vandalism of Humbaba's cedar woods is a peculiarly senseless type of quest, and his grief and anger often seem like mere petulance, particularly when the events that cause them are largely his own fault. This is particularly true when he loses the chance of immortality. Gilgamesh's conduct to Utnapishtim in general seems childish, as he takes on the challenge to remain awake for a week, instantly fails through lack of self-control, then lies about his failure in a shameless and futile manner.
All these instances of poor conduct on Gilgamesh's part raise questions for readers to ask themselves about how to treat others and about basic standards of integrity and self-possession. In particular, the author begins the poems by juxtaposing descriptions of Gilgamesh's splendid attributes and abilities with an account of the tyranny that has forced his people to appeal to the gods. People who possess special abilities and status often think they are above the rules that apply to ordinary people. Gilgamesh's behavior is a warning against this line of thought, since his example shows that an exceptional person can do an exceptional amount of damage if he refuses to act morally.