It is a struggle for people not to be able to think freely. However, the Council in Anthem has forbidden individual thoughts. They worked to create a society where everyone is supposedly defined as equal. These rules cause Equality to believe he is evil for not being able to prevent his individual thoughts. Equality thinks he is a sinner for thinking outside of his
In response to the choice of Street Sweeper, Equality thinks, “We knew we had been guilty, but now we had a way to atone for it” (26). With his intelligence and curiosity, Equality would do much better as a Scholar. The government punishes him for being different, and as a result, they can’t see him become advantageous. They are blinded by their beliefs on
This conflict was a struggle for Equality since he wanted to help his brothers however when they denied his help he concluded that they are wrong and are not worth the effort. Prometheus (Equality 4-2521) only ever wanted to assist his brothers in improving their society but after everything he went through he understood that they didn’t want anything to change even though change is what was needed for their race to evolve. Choosing to not tell the council about the tunnel ensured Equality’s victory in becoming an individual because without the tunnel nothing
Even when they know change if is for the better, they still persist in trying to keep things the way it used to be and the way it has always been. When they realize change is inevitable, they dig their heels in and act as if everything is someone else’s fault. When they are left behind in the progress, they want to become offended and make excuses why they weren’t included. Generally, these people will get left behind or they will leave. If they continue to stay and are exclusively negative, their attitude infects other people.
In other words, emotions can either be good or bad. I feel that this is something that should be avoid because, when we refer to certain emotions as good or bad, we develop this concept that it is right or wrong to feel a certain way. This may result in some individuals feeling ashamed to feel “bad.” We have created a society where you force positivity upon people and shame those that are not positive. In doing this, we create a strict environment that fails to consider the diversity in emotion. In addition, if a person feels ashamed of their unhappiness, then they may be afraid to share their feelings.
Ayn Rand also had an argument against ethical egoism believing it is a mistake to treat the interest of some individuals as being less important than the interest of others. She thought on the fact that your interest is yours is not relevant to their importance relative to the importance of the interest of others. So, it is a mistake to treat your own interests as if they are more important than the interest of others. Personally, I agree with Ayn Rand’s view supporting ethical egoism. I’ve realized that I only do whatever I choose to do for my own self benefit and self-interest.
At first glance this theory seems to be a wonderful idea, however throughout this paper I will argue that Utilitarianism is not a successful account of morality. I will explain the flaws with utilitarianism, such as not caring about actions, and not having bias to other individuals. Utilitarianism can be broken down into three different principles. The first principle explains that the motivation to get to the final result does not matter as long as one gets the conclusion that makes society the happiest. For instance, if person A persistently asks another individual (person B) to hang out for a while but person B keeps saying no.
It is prima facie unfair, according to Rawls, to allow the least-well-off to starve to death simply because of their own bad luck, which merely appears to point to ‘formal impartiality’ as ‘formally concerning for all’. In contrary, a just or non-formal impartiality might allow special consideration for persons who have traditionally been marginalized or subject to discrimination. Rawls comes to realize that the ultimate argument for the difference principle is a Kantian
Lastly, John Hicks argues that we would be dissatisfied in a world without evil. Our, “ethical concepts would have no meaning whatsoever” (Velasquez, 2014p.266). Think about it, no right because there is no wrong, no love because there is no hate, no peace because there is no war, none of the things we consider virtuous would even
He 's always there for any of his friends and there had been times where he just met someone and tries to help him as much as possible which is insane in some of the situations he gets into. I would also be able to look at the world in a different kind of perspective as I do now and I would like that. I 'm not able to be compassionate about what I believe in because I don 't have faith that I 'm correct in many situations when I think someone is wrong. Kaneki always stands up for what he thinks is right. He would get into arguments and fights with people in other to get his message to the other person.