It is not easy to justify Jason's course of action. Euripides metes out a great deal of responsibility for why Medea is the way she is because of Jason's actions. There is a great deal of selfishness and a sense of self- indulgence that is within Jason's actions that make it difficult to persuade one that his actions actually can be justified. It seems to me that the best approach to take is to argue that Medea's actions are not justified. In this light, Jason's actions do not look as bad as Medea's. Perhaps, it is in this condition that one could begin to search for some semblance of justification. Medea's actions are so destructive socially and personally that she creates a threshold for unjustifiable actions that no one can approach. While Jason's actions are selfish, they are nothing as selfish as Medea slaughtering their children. Jason's actions cannot be justified on their own merit. Yet, when compared to Medea's actions which embody the lack of justification, Jason's actions might be considered more tolerable. Medea's actions are probably the embodiment of the lack of justification. Jason's actions are wrong and bad, but are not to this level. Absolute standards of conduct have become relative to the actions of another. This might be one of the lasting legacies of the portraits that Euripides has offered. I think that this becomes the standard that one has to use in order to determine whether or not Jason's actions can be justified.