When death takes his godson, his godson was “unable to resist and was obligated to follow death” and no matter how the godson tried to escape/trick death “[he] fell forever into the hands of Death”. Because the godson could not control his fate with death, it shows that death is more forceful than all man, even his godson. The book ends with the lesson that death can not be resisted and if death decides to take a person, the person will have no option but to go with death and, pass away. Altogether, Godfather death, the theme of death is applied to teach the simple facts of death. This story is beneficial because it can be used as a tool to teach children about death.
Even if A ends up dying B is not liable for A’s death. He may only merely have a moral obligation to help but he cannot be charged with murder or battery. Basically, B cannot be prosecuted for his failure to act. Although this is the general principle, it is subject to exceptions. Where a person is under a duty to act and he fails to do so he is deemed to be criminally liable for the omission.
Ironically he does so by doing nothing. Nick Carraway’s passive nature leads to the many mishaps in the novel, which stresses the idea that not being evil does not necessarily make someone a good person. Had Carraway been less apathetic, the death of Gatsby and of Myrtle could have been prevented. The issues in the novel are rooted in Carraway’s passive tendencies towards the actions of the people around him. “I’m inclined to reserve all judgements” (1) Nick states at the beginning of the novel, which instantly sets up his passivity.
Morality is not a concern for Oscar Wilde and his characters. The lives of the characters throughout the novel are dictated by their authenticity. Whenever a character gives themselves over to artifice, they are rebuked for it soon after, regardless of how “good” or “bad” their actions may be. Wilde uses this novel as a cautionary tale for what can happen to a person when they abandon their own beliefs and natural impulses in favor of other’s opinions and affectation. Basil Hallward lives what most would consider a moral life, but his actions to influence others ultimately lead to his downfall.
According to Bazin, today no one recognizes the ontological link between the body and a representation: “No one believes any longer in the ontological identity of model and image, but all are agreed that the image helps us to remember the subject and to preserve him from a second spiritual death”. The need for survival after death is no longer a concern for the arts, instead, now the focus is on “the creation of an ideal world in the likeness of the real, with its own temporal identify.” Today the plastic arts aim to create a virtual world that is near the realms of realism and has nothing to do with life and afterlife. This explains why photography and cinema caused “the great spiritual and technological crisis that overtook modern painting” in the 1850s. A varied balance between the symbolic and realism has been struck world over by the painting. In the fifteenth century Western painting began to turn from its age- old concern with spiritual realities towards an effort to combine this spiritual expression with as complete an imitation as possible of the outside
He did not say or do things to be politically correct or to end up on good terms with anyone. He spoke his mind openly and did not care what others thought of it or the consequences that it could bring. For example, when asked to say that he regrets killing the Arab, Meursault responds by saying that he feels more annoyance than regret. In the end, however, Meursault ends up paying the ultimate price for not playing the game of doing what is socially expected of
What distinguishes intent from recklessness in this case is that the desire to scare was intended by the setting of the fire, and the foresight of death played no part in her decision to act. Although there has been a lot of debate on this point, the House of Lords recently accepted a distinction between intention and mere foresight (think this is from text book so try find reference). In Hancock (Hancock and Shankland  AC 455) Lord Scarman spoke “foresight does not necessarily imply the existence of intention” ( 1 AC 455,
However, Whinney refuses to give FlightyFoote away to Gabe when Hooftastic died. What Whinney did is an example of true impossibility. True impossibility means that something has happened making it literally impossible to do what the promisor said he would. True impossibility is generally limited to these three causes: (1) destruction of the subject matter, (2) the death of the promisor in a personal service contract and (3) illegality. The first one, the example of the destruction of the subject matter can be evaluated by observing on what has happened to the Hooftastic, Hooftastic was the subject matter in the contract; however, due to some reasons, he died.
Duncan, Banquo, Macbeth, and Lady Macbeth are key exhibits of what not to do when face to face with evil. On one hand, the Macbeths invite supernatural powers into their lives; whereas, characters like Duncan and Banquo do not seek out evil, yet they do not do anything to prevent it. Regardless of the justification, they all allow their lives to rot with evil. In the end, they all receive the gift of being set free, for it is “Better to be dead, to be nothing, than to base one’s joy upon destruction” (Frame, 48). They no longer have to struggle to find the happiness they formerly sacrificed for riches.
Moreover a dead person has no autonomy, so if torturing strips the victim’s freedom, there is little difference between being tortured and death. However, it does not imply that torture is less preferable to killing. Also, it does not imply that the act of torture is morally worse than killing because torture may be short termed and that the victim’s will may be still intact but there is certainly no life for the victim if he is