If life was judged on the strict categorization of selfish or sacrificial, where would the majority of the people fall? In The Crucible, the character John Proctor can be seen as either selfish of sacrificial, depending on the point of view. He can be seen as selfish because he cheated on his wife while she was bedridden from sickness. Although others argue that Proctor was sacrificial because he revealed himself as a lecher to save those accused of witchcraft and because he died to save his name and the names of his friends. John Proctor was more sacrificial because one selfish action should not define a person’s life as a whole.
Betrayal is used as key object within the novel, which progressively develops each character into who they become in their own genuine character. Amir presents an act of betrayal to Hassan’s rape by wanting him to depend on his own to see what he is capable of in such a conflict, which is consequently an action of greed. For that reason, he believes that he is not accountable for the act to happen to Hassan, according to as if it was Hassan’s own
These are minor contrasts, in any case. In truth, the storytellers of both stories are strikingly comparable. As prove in the outlines above, both storytellers are blameworthy of murder and experience a powerful inclination to admit to their violations. While each clarifies the conditions of his revolting activities, he likewise endeavors to protect his rational soundness. Each gives a sound clarification of his mental obsessions and depicts his criminal action as reasonable inside the rationale of his admissions.
Marcus Brutus’s fatal flaw in Julius Caesar shows in his naïve idealism. It clearly shows that Brutus thinks too highly of his fellow man, believing them more good at heart than what they are proven to actually be. Firstly, he believes that, as long as they keep the number of deaths to a minimum, everyone will go along with their assassination of Caesar. He is so convicted of this that he declares after denying the suggestion to kill Mark Antony as well as Caesar: “We shall be called purgers, not murderers. / And for Mark Antony, think not of him; / For he can do no more than Caesar’s arm / When Caesar’s head is off” (II.i.193-196).
Macbeth's lust for power becomes blatantly obvious based upon his fears that "to be thus is nothing, but to be safely thus", prompting him to kill Banquo and make an attempt at his son, Fleance. To relieve himself of his insecurities, he manipulates two murderers to believe than Banquo is their "enemy" and the source of all of their problems, displaying his twisted nature. He does not, before the act is already committed, share news of the "deed of dreadful note" with his "dearest chuck", Lady Macbeth, proving he has made his face a "vizard to [his] heart" not only for the public, but also to his once-cohort. Macbeth's peers' opinion sinks so low that he is often merely referred to as a "tyrant" rather than by his name. He is not only a traitorous and cruel king, but the extent to which he is "unfit to govern" makes him "unfit to live" - deserving of death for how he has let down Scotland.
Society does not penalize him because the social order does not know of the sin that he has committed. He is a greater offender than Hester because, to the offense of adultery, he adds the sin of concealment or hypocrisy. His double standard saves him from social censure or any other form of societal action. Had society come to know his crime, it would have sentenced him to death. Dimmesdale is the victim of his conscience only, “He had striven to put a cheat upon himself by making the avowal of a guilty conscience”(136).
A person deserves the same treatment they inflict on others. In this essay, I will discuss whether the claim that retributivists are making are right by justifying whether their assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded. A person who has committed a crime must be punished. Punishment makes sure that the offender pays their debt to the society or state. Retributivism justifies that punishment is payback for crime and its main goal is to give the offender their just deserts.
Clearly, the Pardoner is guilty of the same sin he preaches against, but the fact that he passionately preaches against this sin is even more ironic. In a way, his belief in two different contradictory ideas is kind of similar to the concept of “doublethink” from George Orwell’s 1984, which involves believing in two contradictory ideas at the same time. If the Pardoner believed his own tale, he would realize that his own greed would lead him to his own
The society set in the novel focuses on men in power and women underneath, encouraging Rasheed’s abuse. By the same token, cruelty is the product of human emotion, and in A Thousand Splendid Suns Hosseini unfortunately shows how natural it is for “bad” to exist in the
Everyone is blind to something, whether it is intentional or not. Oedipus the King, written around 430 BC by playwright Sophocles, illustrates how everyone is blind to something; people who are physically blind can sometimes see the truth better than people who can see the physical world. Oedipus chooses to be blind to what he doesn't want to hear because his power makes him hubris and blind to the truth. Tiresias tells Oedipus "that the murderer you seek is yourself" (episode 1) but Oedipus doesn't want to believe it. Oedipus heard a prophecy that he was going to kill his father and sleep with his mother, Oedipus doesn't believe Tiresias because he believes that his parents are in Corinth.
On the other hand, Medea also struggles with balancing natural law and justice. The purpose of justice in the Medea is to restore the natural balance tipped by Jason 's betrayal of his marriage vows to Medea. Creon is also guilty of injustice. It is unjust for him to give his daughter to Jason in marriage, then punish Medea for his own violation of the natural order. Then, out of fear, he justifies his action by suggesting that Medea might harm himself and his daughter.
There were a few rare sympathizers, however, who identified with Jodi Arias’ anger at being used and lied to by a man and truly believed she murdered him in a fit of rage (Keifer, 2015). This would make the proper ruling manslaughter, and not premeditated murder, as the law dictates different punishments based on the premeditation, or lack thereof, of the killer. These sympathizers could argue that there was not enough mercy awarded by the court due to Jodi’s apparently sympathetic situation. What is the proper balance between mercy and justice? Should justice overrule mercy?
Thoreau, knowing the widely accepted value of justice, says "If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth - certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." His goal here is to inspire individuals to break unjust laws, to ultimately achieve the perfect idea of a government. By convincing his audience that civil disobedience is ethically and morally right, he achieves that goal.
There are many debates on how to punish offenders and how to stop them re-offending. Retribution Theorists believe in the old fashion way of punishment, an ‘eye for an eye’ and that the suffering of the victim should determine the level of punishment, for example if a victim is brutally murdered, the offender should pay the price and suffer from a range of punishments themselves. Therefore the punishments differ to the seriousness to the crime, from theft to murder, minor to serious punishments occur. Whereas a reductivist approach believes that we punish offenders to help them change for the better which would be to rehabilitate them for example. (Cavadino 2013) states that the rehabilitation programs might “facilitate change” rather than