The suggestion that the Judge’s life contains “splendid rubbish [...] to cover up and paralyze a more active and subtle conscience” displays the duality of the characterization which the narrator creates. The juxtaposition of “splendid” and “rubbish” serve to expose the Judge’s deteriorating morals, while crafting the surface of respectability. This subtle use of contrasting opinions aids to establish the narrator’s sarcastic tone, simultaneously displaying the judge’s desired character and then undermining that character with suggestions of his true nature. The choice of the word “rubbish” especially highlights the sarcastic tone, equating the sequence of Judge Pyncheon’s life to that of trash, worthy of nothing. This carefully placed, critical diction reveals the true feelings of the narrator, bolstering his sarcasm.
He knows that if he acted on his guilt, his image would be ruined and he would not be perceived as a fair judge. Ultimately, guilt is used to gain mutual, unwarranted respect from others, while using others as collateral damage. Throughout The Crucible guilt was used in many ways. To summarize, Abigail used her guilt to receive attention, and Cheever used guilt to obtain respect while Danforth suppressed his guilt to protect his reputation, and Proctor reflected his guilt onto Elizabeth for self-gain. To conclude, guilt plays an important role in The Crucible because without it, Puritans would not have an outlet for self-gain and to be seen as a good person in the eyes of
“It is a sin to write this,” so begins Anthem. But by the end of the story, Equality 7-2521 has a different moral assessment of his action. Do you think Equality’s eventual assessment of his sin is correct? Why or why not? Explain with evidence from the story.
King in his article discusses just and unjust law and his the concepts of direct action program. King defines “a law which degrades human personality is unjust.” (506) He uses segregation as an example, because it distorts the soul and harm personality. “As the opposite “any law that uplifts personality is just law” (King 506). He uses relevant and real examples. Furthermore he talks about his experience with the law, and how he acted when he faced unjust treatment.
He states the that any law that brighten ups “human personality” is a just law and any law that devalues human personality is an unjust law. MLK finishes of by saying that segregation is sinful. He finds this out by breaking it in to part like so; separation is sinful, segregation laws separate, and therefore segregation laws are sinful. Finally, after explaining why he disobeys some laws he makes it clear to the clergymen that segregation laws are unjust and sinful. Thus, he strongly believes that the Jim crow law should be disobeyed because they are “morally wrong” (par.
Man is born with original sin, the illustrious phrase that thoroughly represents the normative belief of Puritanism, serves an influential role in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s writings. Though inherited with Puritanical roots, the complete oeuvre of Nathaniel Hawthorne vividly portrays his refusal to be a Puritan and depicts his disapproval on Puritan ideas. Hawthorne's perspective on ‘sin’ draws a parallel connection with Puritans, yet he criticizes Puritan religious beliefs through one of his prominent masterpiece: The Minister’s Black veil. In “The Minister’s Black Veil,” Hawthorne conveys his criticism of Puritan ideas through the symbol of the black veil, an emblem of sin within the Earth as opposed to Puritan’s view of the sinless God, a representation
In the eleventh paragraph of “Of Our Spiritual Strivings,” W. E. B. Du Bois’s stylistic and content choices contribute to the persuasiveness of the idea that prejudice is negative and harmful through the use of such rhetorical devices as word choice, alliteration, rhetorical questions, personification, an appeal to pathos, and allusion. In the first sentence of the paragraph, Du Bois writes that prejudice inevitably brings the “self-questioning, self-disparagement, and lowering of ideals which ever accompan[ies] repression and breed[s] in an atmosphere of contempt and hate.” In using the word “breed” to describe the effects of prejudice, Du Bois makes the reader think of the mindless propagation of a virus or bacteria. This, therefore, helps
Tom Campbell explores the idea of poverty as a violation of human right. The premise of the reading presents a critical analysis of the most important attempts to conceptually explain the correlation between poverty and human rights. His standpoint seems to be obvious that there is still lack of conceptual clarity in the notion of poverty as a violation of human rights. Despite this conceptual gap, the approach conceives poverty as the cause of many human rights violations, mainly economic and social rights, but also civil and political rights. Tom Campbell’s proposal that poverty should be classified as a violation of human rights is morally justified by the case for including a principle of humanity.
In ‘Philosophy of Hinduism’ Ambedkar has openly criticised the nature of Hinduism as a religion. In it he says that “justice is simply another name for liberty equality and fraternity. It is in this sense I shall be using justice as a criterion to judge Hinduism”, and with detail analyses of Hindu texts like Manusmrithi, Upanishads etc., he proves that Hinduism is “overwhelmed with the fear of pollution… and by its very nature it is inhuman and unmoral.” He was addressing the issue of caste discrimination through his article, where he says that the untouchables in India are suffering the unjust hands of religion, and not given equal status anywhere. Well, it’s the second decade of the twenty first century and the smothering effects of caste
Satire is also used to exaggerate how awful equality is to persuade readers to believe that total equality will violate human rights. Kurt Vonnegut also uses symbols such as handicaps which make everyone equal and Harrison Bergeron to display the lack of freedom present in a world of total