This shows his bad intentions. Shylock very well knew Antonio’s weak financial conditions and need for money, hence taking undue advantage of the same he frames inhuman conditions in the contract knowing that they would be accepted. This shows the freeness of the consent, also the conditions to this contract were totally irrelevant. It talks about giving away a pound of flesh in case money is not returned; indeed this could lead to death. Such conditions are not only inhumane but also irrelevant as it would not monetarily restore the losing party.
They both express foolish qualities throughout the stories, but underneath their foolishness is a hidden wisdom, which resolve the conflict of the story. Both Alan’s and Jenko’s actions appear ambiguous, sometimes more detrimental than helpful. While their foolishness never seems to assist anyone in the story, their actions actually become the vehicle for which their stories can move forward. In Alan’s case, he accesses one of his major flaws was cheating in gambling. This garner negative attitudes from the other characters during the beginning of the story, but his flaw becomes a necessary component for obtaining the money to free Doug.
The only thing that splits existing period's world from his legacy is a slit of two eras; else his strategic thought exceeds interval and seems to be extra appropriate currently. The strategists, sportsmen and entrepreneurs relate Sun Tzu's strategic thought, whichever consciously or unconsciously, to achieve success in their particular grounds. It isn't flawless whether Sun Tzu portrayed creativeness from the game of Go in scripting The Art of War; nevertheless the black and white stones of the Go is not able to clarify strategy the mode Chief Sun did (idazuwaika 2008). This case study will show the reader how Sun Tzu used the game of Go in application of strategy with applicable cases from his lifetime and its exercise through history. Main:
An important theme in The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, is the corruption of morals because of wealth. It doesn’t matter if one comes from old or new money, wealth will corrupt the morality of even the humblest. The first example of wealth corrupting morals is in the indifference to infidelity between the married Tom Buchanan and Myrtle Wilson. The next example of wealth corrupting morals is seen in Jordan Baker’s actions to keep her luxurious lifestyle. Third, Jim Gatsby’s pursuit of wealth lead to the corruption of his morals.
Schrodinger’s cat was a thought experiment. He used it to illustrate that some of the ideas of quantum mechanics were ridiculous if you put them into the real world. Schrodinger’s thought experiment challenged the Copenhagen interpretation. Schrodinger’s cat was a thought experiment. He used it to illustrate that some of the ideas of quantum mechanics were ridiculous if you put them into the real world.
Thus, since it is impractical to use a rigid moral system, both Weber and Sophocles discuss the importance of responsibility and consequences in decision making. This conception of responsibility and consequences is significant because it differs from a utilitarian quest for “the greater good”. When considering one’s responsibilities, it is inadvisable to cause pain to the individuals that a political leader is responsible for, regardless of the total pleasure it may lead to. In the case of Antigone, Creon’s decision leads to a tragic outcome because he does not take into account the consequences of his actions. His resolve to obstinately stick to his decision is his ultimate downfall.
Thus, they feel that the dishonest job even though it is easy but it is mostly illegal. ‘In my opinion, even if you use a dishonest yet fast way to earn money that would not be right,’ a respondent answered. Money can come from many paths but only the honest one will really help us achieve
As the consequentialist theory implies that one should make decision after calculating its repercussions on others, this case shows that some cases cannot fit into the consequentialist theory as every decision in business cannot be monitored and its consequences predicted accurately beforehand. A non-consequentialist theory judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the intrinsic value, not on its consequences i.e. morality is based on duty. Consequentialisim, however is a doctrine where your action is judged on the consequence it bears. Non-consequentialism hence denies the fact that the wrongness or rightness of our conduct is determined solely by the goodness or badness of the consequences it
As such, while Mike’s lack of financial resources would validate Merton’s theory of anomie and strain, it does not account for the variability of factors such as race that are erroneously applied to people of marginalized racial and ethnic groups. It was like Jameel was guilty simply because of his
This definition seems to be so specific, that is, one cannot always return the owned thing; for instance, you ought not to return the weapon of a madman, because he will most probably use to harm others. I believe that Cephalus is not one of those who have nothing to say, because their whole mind has been absorbed in making money. His definition of justice is all about what is just around himself, he can justify himself as a righteous man. The only reason people listen to his weak argument is because of the respect that his old age brought. Polymarchus’s definition of justice, in fact, is more general than Cephalus's.
In order for civilizations to thrive, they must have some sort of system in place in order to maintain stability amongst the populace. Without any societal order, anarchy runs rampant, and that is the bane of any civilization. This is so because humanity, despite having all the correct faculties, inherently does what comes easiest to them, and often times, the easiest thing to do is not the right thing. Why work in order to receive a salary to use to purchase things, when you can just steal them from others? Why try to create a committed relationship of your own, when you can just take someone else’s significant other through less than savory means?