Final answer:
The phrases "little wrong" and "great right" encapsulate moral considerations where minor wrongs are committed in pursuit of a higher, more significant right. These terms, in terms of the play discussed, raise questions on the subjective nature of morality and its application in justifying actions during war. Dialogue and actions in literature often explore such complex ethical dilemmas and invite audiences to grapple with their interpretations.
Step-by-step explanation:
Understanding "Little Wrong" and "Great Right"
The phrases "little wrong" and "great right" refer to moral judgments often weighed in conflicts such as wars. The "little wrong" could allude to minor transgressions committed in service of a "great right", implying a higher moral purpose justifies certain wrongs. In the context provided, where the characters discuss involvement in war, the little wrong could be the unfortunate but necessary actions taken during war (like violence), while the great right refers to the grand idea of fighting for liberty and humanity.
The character seems to suggest that she must push her ideals onto her interlocutor, nudging him towards becoming her version of a hero and partaking in a war she deems just. This shows the complexity behind the terms "little wrong" and "great right", suggesting that what is seen as a minor transgression by some may be necessary for a larger moral victory for others. Yet, the validity of this war as a "sacred" one and whether it embodies a "great right" is a matter of perspective, and it carries the implication that morality is often subjective and relative to individual beliefs.
In the discourse of literature and plays, as the examples provided indicate, actions and words of characters are often deliberate and serve to express complex themes and moral questions. Phrases like "little wrong" and "great right" pose a dichotomy that invites audiences to reflect on ethical flexibilities in diverse situations, leaving open the question of whether the ends justify the means.