Although Macbeth actively kills the King, Lady Macbeth was more guilty of Duncan’s murder than Macbeth. Lady Macbeth manipulated Macbeth into killing Duncan; she is just as involved in the murder as Macbeth, resulting in her being guiltier than Macbeth. Lady Macbeth exclaims, “Wouldst thou have that which thou esteem’st the ornament of life, and live a coward in thine own esteem, letting ‘I dare not’ wait upon ‘I would,’ like the poor car i’ adage?” (Shakespeare 163).
On can tell when someone is evil hearted. In Macbeth, any person can definitely see who the evil spirited people are because they stand out more than the others in a negative way. In this story, they are clearly a married couple that are both trouble. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth demonstrate how evil a person can be by murder. They have no mercy for anyone besides themselves.
Despite the fact that Tybalt initiated the fight, Romeo did kill Tybalt with no need for self-defense. Although killing Tybalt was Romeo's intentions at the moment, his actions were not premeditated. In conclusion, the outcome of Romeo Montague's trial proves his is guilty of a violent crime. His defense was not strong enough reasoning and could not support Romeo’s claim of self-defense. The evidence presented to the jury gave a clear indication of no need for self-defense.
For society, the struggle between their aspirations to be moral and just and the greater, more abstract moral cost they pay every time they condone a state-sanctioned murder is a never ending battle. No one wishes to be the person who “heard her cries for help but did nothing while an attacker stabbed her to death”, no one wants that on their conscience (Bruck 581). In order to compensate for this occurrence, they try to reconcile themselves by exerting the harshest punishment known upon the perpetrator while distancing themselves from the person. With this first instinct of “an eye for an eye”, capital punishment made its debut with the thought “the advantages, moral or material, outweigh [the cost]” (DMW, VDH 2). In the film, Prejean battles this preconception with the claim that the moral cost society pays far outweighs any benefits it poses.
Multiple harsh scenarios give a detailed outline on how Blanche can ruin a character 's self esteem without doing much harm to her own. Blanche buries her own personal flaws by attention seeking , flirtatious behavior, lying and drinking. “Blanches most fundamental regret as we see her in new orleans, is not that she happened to marry a homosexual… Blanche’s concern that, when made aware of her husband 's sexuality she brought on the boys suicide” (Berkman 252) When Blanche judges somebody else it take weight off her shoulders from her own life struggles. Allan killing himself was just another layer of filth that Blanche tends not to acknowledge. The act of Allan Grey killing himself after Blanche discover’s that he is a homesexual is what started the chain of events for Blanche to take on majority of her traits.
Montresor never has a reason to think anyone would ever suspect him of being the guiltless murderer he really is. Fortunato, due to his personal vices, never has a chance against the manipulative Montresor. From the beginning, Montresor deceives Fortunato as a friend to enact revenge upon him and send him to his untimely death. Fortunato, or rather his personality, has insulted Montresor, which put the plan in motion. Montresor extends a warm greeting, “My dear Fortunato, you are luckily met.
The killing shows that this society is flawed and corrupt, proving them to be a dystopia. If the police had caught the real Montag like they portray, the society may not be classified as a dystopia, but that wouldn’t follow Bradbury’s vision. The police are focused more on entertaining these viewers’ attention spans than they are about keeping these same viewers
In both stories, the narrator mad that you can not say that they are not smart, though neither believes he is mad. We know that they are crazy because of their irrational intent to kill people who never actually harmed them. In The Cask of Amontillado, whatever insults inflicted Fortunado were relatively minor, with the proviso that they exist at all, and does not Fortunado treats Montreasor as a friend and shows him
I do think that people in general do have a difficult time accepting what is different and making sense of things that sometimes just cannot be made sense of. In regards to Beowulf, I don’t feel that the monsters themselves were dehumanized outcasts but more representative of societal abnormalities as a whole. They represent chaos and lawlessness. Grendel had a blood lust that could not be satisfied. He acted like a thief in the night killing without reason or warning and using only his hands.
“For [Wiesel] belongs to a traumatized generation, one that has experienced the abandonment and solitude of [his] people…” (Wiesel 119) To act as if nothing happened would be abandoning them once more. Furthermore, forgetting makes the public accomplices. It does no good for anyone involved in the situation except for the despot.
Thus, O’Connor meticulously crafts the Misfit as villain, molded through unfair
The responsibility was laid out to them clearly, but the decision to downplay this massacre would lead to events soldiers wished never happened. By omission and commission, they suppressed reports of the incident and submitted false or misleading accounts to higher headquarters. (My Lai Massacre) By suppressing the news of the massacre, Calley and his fellow officers just dug themselves a deep hole. Surely they should have expected the cause and effect from this small decision.
You can 't just sit there knowing that someone you know is going to be murdered and not do anything about it, you would have that on your mind. I don 't believe Jay 's story at all, he is a sketchy person who can 't make his mind up about certain things. He keeps changing details in his stories, and his alibi doesn’t seem right to me. Jay keeps going back and forth on his word and how things actually happened. He doesn’t seem trustworthy to me.
Our Influences: Our Choices Nathan Bedford was not born a racist. Raskolnikov was not born a murderer. If Nathan Bedford was born into a union family, he likely would not have started the KKK. If Raskolnikov wasn’t born into his family or did not have the same influences, he would likely not have murdered two innocent women. But both these figures like John Jay and Razumihin had a choice, and they disregarded their integrity and chose to follow negative influences, as opposed to positive examples.