It is best to tell the truth, even to a murderer because it relinquishes responsibility over the situation. If one was to lie to the murderer, and he caught and killed the victim anyways, his death would be morally the fault of the person who lied. This is challenging to accept because the initial reaction is to protect the victim, but by doing so one assumes responsibility for them. It is irrational to lie when considering a world where everyone lies - the murderer would know he was being lied to, thus entering the building to kill the victim regardless. Therefore, it is more rational to simply tell the truth.
This shows that even through tough times, such as the Holocaust, hope is still there for others. He may not be standing up for someone but he still as a hope through the tough times that some people go through or already went through. In conclusion, you should stand up to the oppressor or tormentor and be the voice for those who don't have one. The statement by Elie Wiesel, "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, not the tormented" is true because standing up for someone can make a significant change.
He never financially hurt individuals, but simply businesses that could easily recover. Abagnale felt guilty for his crimes as a youth and wished that he did not have to complete them. However, Abagnale was pushed into the life of crime and had no other choice. Abagnale was never seeking to financially or mentally hurt others, but was simply taking advantage of opportunities, as well as doing everything he could to live. It is important for everyone in the world to know that Frank Abagnale is a kind hearted person that should never be viewed as an overall negative individual.
In essence, in her work Arendt, specifically referring to the case of one of the main Holocaust organizers Otto Adolf Eichmann, writes that people who are directly involved in carrying out terrible crimes are not necessarily fanatics, but could be mere average people who bureaucratize even the most unspeakable atrocities under the premise that it is their duties to obey the orders of the state or any other likewise authority. Those people may actually not feel any specific negative emotions towards people who affected by their actions at all. The main drivers of their motivation to work is belief in their duties, job etc. The implications of the work however cruel it may be are thus disregarded. Arendt uses the term “banality of evil” to describe her this
It was time where suspicion, distrust and fear were widespread throughout the country. People were more concerned about their own personal welfare than the problem at hand. McCarthy’s methods were both thoughtless and vicious; because he wanted to accomplish his goal regardless if it meant violating the rights and values of the American people. Clooney managed to capture the essence of this to an extent; he kept his political views to himself and portrayed the realism of America in the 1950’s. He presented the facts and information in an accurate manner, by doing so; it gives the viewers a sense of the history without polluting their minds.
For example, Atticus doesn’t tell Scout and Jem what to say or what to do, instead he tells them to see things from another's point of view. Another valuable example is that Scout and Jem thought that Boo Radley was a monster because everyone was terrified of him, but he turns out to be the one saving Scout and Jem in the end. It clearly teaches us to be aware that unreasonable biases can have a significant effects on a person and not to judge people easily. The whole story is very thought-provoking. Since it brings up issues of race and fairness which still exist in our society today, it is still broadly relevant.
Throughout time, humanity has conformed for many different reasons, fear, agreement, and out of habit. But someone had resisted this habit and is on trial for it, his name, Professor Faber. He, in fact, didn’t do so to resist the government, he aided Guy Montag for the purpose of helping him in his quest for knowledge and individualism, Professor Faber has done nothing wrong except had empathy for a fellow human. Meaning that he hasn’t conformed with the rest of society in the same way. The same way as many important figures in the United States history, a multitude have broken laws for the greater good.
One of Baumrind’s claims was that Milgram’s experiment was not relatable to real life and Nazi Germany, but the reason of her argument seems to be a misunderstanding. In her next argument, she blamed him for not taking care of the subjects. Milgram’s experiment was emotionally challenging but it was not harmful; after the questionnaires he did and the meetings he had with the subjects, it’s clear that no damage was done to the participants. Despite Baumrind’s claims, both Milgram’s experiment and his arguments were a great success. Instead of focusing on the ethics of the experiment, one should answer this question: Would you push that
While the news reached them of the atrocities being committed by the Germans, there was a huge amount of disbelief at it and very few believed that atrocity at such a scale could be happening. The Germans had tried their best to keep it secret too. However, it would have been close to impossible to hide such a large scale atrocity. So the firsthand accounts of the atrocities did reach them but they were met with general apathy. There was no suitable reaction to this partly because they were in a state but also because of negligence and carelessness about the Jews.
Even though he had some injuries he still did not want to press charges, which revealed Gandhi really did not like violence and he would do anything to display to the people that you can solve differences without violence. Gandhi connects to the Holocaust because he had a positive impact on India and the Holocaust left a negative impact on the Jews, so they both left tremendous impacts. Also, they are similar because Gandhi felt what he was doing was right, so did Hitler. Another example is after Gandhi was arrested for no reason he did not think all police were mean , just as the Jews did not think all Germans were mean. Gandhi also caused riots just as Hitler caused riots.