In The Crucible, is John Proctor justified in maintaining his reputation or does he have a greater obligation to his family?

This is really a good question. I believe John Proctor was
justified in maintaining his reputation. A good name is something to strive to keep. A
good name is worth more than gold:

readability="7">

Proverbs 22

1A
GOOD name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver
and gold.

You can't put a
price on a good name. No doubt, John Proctor loved his family, but he could not give up
his good name. That is all that he has that is of
value.

Even Elizabeth, his wife, claimed that John had
found his goodness and she would not take that away from
him:

The play
ends with the final statement from Elizabeth: “He have his goodness now. God forbid I
take it from him!”

If
Elizabeth feels John has done the right thing, he must be commended for maintaining his
reputation. I respect John for maintaining his reputation. He maintained his integrity.
He claimed to be innocent of witchcraft even in the face of death. He did not live and
die in vain. He will be remembered for not giving in to a corrupt court system. He could
not claim to be involved in witchcraft when in fact he was not. Honesty is the best
policy, even if it means death.