On the other hand, the author does a really “good job” on picking the solid opponent’s perspectives. Some solid counter arguments such as “Language death is symptomatic of cultural death: a way of life disappears with the death of a language” (Daniel Nettle, 3), or “Each language has its own window on the world” (Nettle, 7) indirectly tell the readers the opposite idea that against the author’s point of view. They are valid, reasonable, and reliable to dominate the essay’s main point and its evidences. Those opposing views are so strong that they even break the whole essay down. Therefore the readers are more convinced by the counter argument more than the author’s idea, although his evidences try to plant the idea on reader’s mind.
While it might seem as if there is a dichotomy of good deception and evil deception, the reality is that there is a kind of grey-area. It is difficult to distinguish what is good and bad, and as a result, there is much confusion amongst the characters. Even Benedick deceiving himself is not clearly one or the other. While his protections are to keep his heart safe, he comes off as arrogant and plays into the stereotype of a typical single man. In protecting himself, he hurts others.
The beneficial side of ego is that it “constitutes the essential identity of a human being” (Rand Introduction) but the detrimental side, according to visionlaunch.com, is that it can “completely eliminate objectivity”. If people didn’t care for themselves, then they wouldn’t know how to care for others and vice
Influential Ambition Ambition is one of the hardest driving forces in a person’s life. It can push people past their limits to achieve something great, but can be dangerous when it causes them to bypass good judgement in order to succeed in their goal. In both Into Thin Air and Macbeth, Rob Hall and Macbeth are strongly influenced by ambition from inside and outside. This ambition, good or bad, eventually leads to both of their downfalls. While both Rob and Macbeth’s downfalls are influenced by their own and others ambition, Rob is able to save his dignity despite facing the same fate as Macbeth.
His decisions are beneficial to him, and him only. Odysseus does what he wants, and how it will affect others does not cross his mind. The Kyklops predicament could have been avoided if it were not for Odysseus’ desire to obtain total superiority. And it was unnecessary for Odysseus to glorify his bow and arrow triumph, but given the chance, he took the opportunity to do so. Egotistical behavior tends to be looked down upon, and is considered to be corrupt and reprehensible.
Herold did help a murderer; however, he is like everyone, in that he is susceptible to violent threats. For this reason, Herold did not deserve a conviction with a capital sentence; the punishment was far too severe, and does not fit the crime. Herold’s actions are understandable; he was stressed to Booth out of fear and pressure from him, he didn’t
Both Maximus Meridius and Captain John H. Miller have the qualities of a tragic hero, which are: a high position, a fatal flaw, and a downfall caused by their flaw. It is clear that Miller is a superior example of a tragic hero because he displays a larger amount of humanly traits such as fear and his situation is tragic because if he was still alive, his life could have been better, he could have been around the love of his life, unlike
I never thought two people so different could be this near from each other. This sentence made a clear image of the bond between two friends. But as at the beginning, I say, love, make us the biggest sinner. In the first place, killing Lennie is an example of the deep cares George had for Lennie. People would immediately be against with this thesis, but let me explain
A tragic flaw is a thing nobody wants to have in common with another. These flaws can range from ignorance, love, or pride. The worst flaw that stands above them all is ambition. Ambition can go hand in hand with the three previously listed flaws but as far as flaws go ambition seems harmless, but it is far from it. In William Shakespeare's Macbeth and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein two characters more specially Macbeth and Victor Frankenstein are one in the same through their actions and because they both, through ambition, have the taste of power, the life of power, and the downfall due to power.
A standard that was made by people who may not have necessarily ever been in such a situation. Objectively speaking, it is possible, highly likely in fact, this was immoral and unethical but, the situations where one could resist an intervention in such a dilemma cannot be ignored. Ayn Rand argues for the virtue of selfishness and this is one example of just why someone would ignore the brutality displayed by Ms. Genovese’s attacker. This argument that even a seemingly selfless act is still acted upon for selfish reasons could go the exact opposite way. Some people said they were afraid and perhaps, this fear is what kept them from acting.
Another problem is disappointing, with the desired certification. According to Shafer-Landau, “Getting what you really want can sometimes be a huge letdown,” (p 49). Most people will not feel happiness when it comes to a disappointment, it may make them more determined, but
He assumes that both options, even the complete end of existence, are ignorant to be afraid of. He claims that the fear of death amounts to simply thinking one is wise when one is not. This is a huge assumption because it is perfectly rational to fear the unknown – we as humans do it all the time. There is a stigma of the unknown for the obvious reason that we do not understand the consequences. Psychology research suggests we generally like to be able to anticipate consequences, which is why the fear of death is a complete rational fear.
Aristotle, according to me, has a rather satisfactory counter-argument to Glaucon’s opinions in the Ring of Gyges Story. It is true that what is good for one might not be necessarily good for another and if doing something evil makes one feel good then that particular individual is essentially very immoral. An individual who is not as deep into immorality as this particular person would feel a level of guilt if they did something evil. Glaucon’s proposal that good people lack the good things evil behavior brings is, therefore, nullified. Secondly, it makes a lot of sense to think of ethics in relation to character as compared to actions or even intentions.