To use this form of ethics one must ask, if everyone bribed the judge to win their case how would it affect our justice system? There would be no true value of justice just like if everyone cheated on their test their would be no value in a degree. Lastly, under the principle of rights Bucket would not bribe the judge because bribes are contrary to the natural desire for justice. It would impend on the judges decision to make an ethical decision and affect other attorneys who come into contact with this judge Under outcome-based ethics Mr. Bucket would bribe the judge, however. The bribe would essentially hold the corportation responsible for all the victims it negligently injuried.
The third juror begins to become irritated when the other members want to review the evidence. A negative quality about this man is that he acts on emotions, not common sense. He’s the first to vote guilty and last to change his vote to not guilty. He claims that he hasn’t seen his son in two years, so he wants to take his loneliness and anger out on the defendant. His motive is to be the man, who pulls the kill switch on the electric chair.
In 1957 there was a film entitled “12 Angry Men,’’ and it was a film about a son who supposedly, killed his father and the 12 men who are the jurors for the court case. Throughout the film, there is a lot of arguing and bickering but with the arguing, watchers learn more and more about all the characters and their views and beliefs and how they influence their votes. In the 1957 film, viewers learn the most about how jurors votes are shifted mostly by their, past experiences, unfamiliar knowledge, and their open minds. One of the most influential traits to change the jurors views is their past experiences with “slum boys.’’(Film) The jurors who had been influenced by the trait were jurors all but juror eight. As the movie went on, all the jurors had explained why they had a bad view on children from the slums.
What Lennie did showed the had was courageous. He knew what he was doing was wrong, but had to stand up for himself because he was hurt. In today's society people could be very judgemental of a person having a mental disability. What Lennie did was to prove that people shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. Anyone could show courageous no matter how different people are from one another.
Why is doing something that is expected of us make us feel remorse? Let’s put it this way, if someone told you to hurt someone or they would hurt you, you would probably do it, but you would still feel horrible. Why you feel this way is because you have still done something you think it wrong. Nathan believes that the movement of the stone man was wrong and was something he shouldn 't have done. Yet, not everyone saw the stone man in this light.
We should not be prideful thinkers because it will not benefit anybody in any way, shape, or form. Pride is an endless cycle of the way people think of each other and themselves. People who are prideful will always try to make themselves look better than everyone around them, but on the inside there is fear and doubt of what they think others will think about them. When those that get made fun of will have to make a choice, they will stand up to it or will feel bad about themselves. And the people who take it in will start to use pride to make them look better about themselves.
You clearly fail to realize that in this respect, your strictures should be aimed, not at me, but at Fortune, who frequently raises the unworthy to positions of eminence and leaves the worthless in low estate." (pg 338) Ghismonda starts a powerful argument that terminates that pushes a notion further about how easily people construe the meaning of honor. Tancredi condemned Guiscardo because of his social rank and nothing much more. He would rather be right in his misjudgement than accept his morals have been coerced by a situation out of his control- this being Ghismonda in love with the
Danforth responds saying “ I cannot hear you.” His response shows that he could not bear to hear the truth of the situation. The conflict in The Crucible could have had a different outcome, if Judge Danforth had seen through the facade that was presented to him. He was fed lies, beginning with Abigail’s wild stories. As people realized he was easily convinced, they used this to their advantage to take down people they did not like. Even after having his judgment questioned by people of the religious establishment he would still not face his arrogance and ignorance and make the trial
Desolate and desperate for the affections of another, it led the creature to make irrational decisions from rage. I am not stating or arguing that the creature was innocent in the crimes he committed, or that he was not aware of what was occurring as he gripped to his victims’ throats and ceased their breathing. I am simply voicing that he is not the only being with guilt. Near the end, he no longer desired for all of society’s acceptance, but merely one person’s. His entire tale, as it is now told, could have been wholly different and avoidable if he would have received what he longed
Danforth's power blinds him to the truth, and prevents him from seeing the effect that his actions have on the lives of innocent people Arthur Miller argues that being fearful or damaging one's reputation is what caused people to act irrationally and against their morals, coming off as selfish and arrogant, and leading to the Salem Witch Hysteria. Through the characterization of Hale, Parris and Danforth, it is evident how excessive pride makes people unwilling to admit to their mistakes, with the fear of a reputation damage. Miller's descriptions of the frailty of arrogance, can be used as an example of how arrogance turns people against each