Hannah Arendt Third Reich Analysis

Due to their bullet point format, Lawrence is expressing this very plainly. This allows him to show his disapproval of Hester as he feels that Hester’s sin is unforgivable and she should be shunned for eternity instead of painted as a hero, which is what Hawthorne

The many arguments against Arendt stem from one deeper cause of the controversy: the contention over which version of history society will believe. In one version; the trial validated the legitimacy of the state of Israel as a representation of defense and safity, and it emphasized crimes specifically against Jewish people. It ended the victim

The racism that was so normalized among Conrad and his peers has since placed his novel under attack by Chinua Achebe, who claimed that “Art is not intended to put people down. If so, the art would ultimately discredit itself” and that if it pulled out and dehumanized such a large portion of the human race, it could truly not be considered a work of art (Phillips). Yet, the racism embedded in the novel played a much larger part than merely being racism. Both Conrad and Marlow are clearly racist, but Conrad knows that the superiority held by the Europeans was wrong, and he uses Marlow to view that and to show that there is a possibility for it to change. He knows that although he could see no alternative, it was possible just as he saw with Imperialism.

In order for Heller to do this, he begins by first criticizing heroism through the character of Yossarian. As presented earlier Yossarian is an anti-hero and he is not like the typical traditional hero. However, Heller does ridicule some more traditional heroes in the novel like Nately to explain to the reader that instead of being brave or courageous your actions and reaction should of a coward. The lack of respect for war that Heller portrays through Yossarian, who lacks the courage and is a coward, helps the reader understand the meaning and reaction to war in Heller’s point of

Machiavelli’s advice is there for the people who hold power and exposes the truth in human nature. However, although Machiavelli opens up the honesty of humanity; he teaches that there are a lot of people who are not good, so one must also learn to not be good. The thing that is wrong with this is that evil does not combat with evil. Evil can not conquer evil, good conquers. Therefore, The Prince explores the reality of human nature as self-interested and wicked.

It was sinful to treat Tom Robinson like trash because of hatred towards his race. It was sinful to keep Boo Radley locked away from society because of the mistakes he made. These preventable situations are like killing a mockingbird; you shouldn’t do it but it is done anyway. Tom Robinson and Boo Radley were mockingbirds because they were not a threat to society, yet were punished for being human. Holocaust victims were alienated in a reprehensible way.

Instead of trying to undermine racism here, Shakespeare is encouraging it. Aaron is an incredibly evil character, with very little moral values, so much so that “if one good deed in all my life I did, I do repent it from my very soul”(Act V, Scene III, Lines 191-192). He is a powerful character, which is what allows him to be able to carry out such awful deeds. He makes love to Tamora while she is married to the Emperor, carries out any evil acts Tamora want him to do, and frames Quintus and Martius; all things he would not have been able to do as a someone with less power. This promotes the idea that other races should not be allowed to have so much power.

According to John Locke, an effective government must respect its people’s natural rights, which he argues is necessary because he believes that people have the ability to reason and are inherently good to govern themselves. Because the boys fail to implement this key governing component, they face the consequence of complete chaos and anarchy, which leads to multiple deaths. In John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, he mentions the idea that “Governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments.” [Locke]. Since he says that “governments exist by the consent of the people”, he is saying that

When one considers characterization, symbolism and figurative language, it is clear that Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. uses satire in the story. He is satirizing the collective notion that all people must be equal. “Harrison Bergeron” offers vigorous political and social criticisms of both American in general and the America of the 1960s since it is written during that time. Vonnegut suggests that the ideals of egalitarianism, which holds that people should be equal in every way, are dangerous if taken too

Antigone uses ethics to defend her arguments while Creon uses logic. Creon’s arguments only rest on his idea that the king should be followed and obeyed even if they’re right or wrong. Both Creon and Antigone’s arguments seem to be coming down to ethics versus logic. A logical argument is typically stronger because of the facts, but the law which became fact, due to Creon was only his values so it turns out to be an argument between two people’s values. In the play, Antigone, Creon and Antigone cannot give in to each other and if Creon gave in to Antigone’s wishes and spared her brother, he would have felt that he weakened himself as a ruler in the eyes of the people he ruled over while Antigone felt that he had to break Creon’s law for the honor that her already dishonored family had for being incestuous.

But that last thing is that that is what i feel about hammurabi code, But it is fair to just. Hammburabi code is fair. Because the reason why i had chosen this and seen laws are that. It isnt right for somebody that has done something bad and then they dont get in trouble.

Another perspective surrounding the American criminal justice system is that people only criticize the system because the results they wanted did not occur. Some people go as far as to say, “THE criminal justice system doesn 't work” (Haberman). But why do people have these strong feelings against the American criminal justice system? Haberman’s interesting viewpoint answers that question when he says, “It seems to be a popular pastime: trashing the system when it does not produce the results you want.” From this quotation one can consider that some people disparage the system so heavily because they disagree with the rulings, not because the judgements are wrong, but simply because they do not like them.

Hobbes believed that natural state of humans was violent and therefore needed order and control to ensure a just and equal society (Robinson 2016, 4). However Hobbes believed that a sovereign could maintain power without deceit and manipulation. Hobbes believed in the social contract which is when people could have a moral understanding about right and wrong to avoid the chaotic violent human nature. Hobbes believed in the idea of utilitarianism which would “maximize the most good and minimize the pain” (Robinson 201, 4). This would ensure that the sovereign was doing things for the right reasons and not to better himself but to better society as a

Scout goes on to say, “She hates Hitler a lot… she went on today about how bad it was him treating the Jews like that… coming out of the courthouse that night… I heard her say it’s time somebody taught them a lesson, they were getting way above themselves, next thing they think they can do is marry us… how can you hate Hitler so bad but be so ugly to folks at home--” (330-331) This is a person who is considered “nice”, has the right and kind view on one subject, but also has a terrible stance on another. This shows that even “nice” people aren’t entirely good or pure, which helps portray the theme of people not being all one thing or another.

Dillard’s “In the Jungle” was most striking to me in its use of juxtaposition between the purity of the nature in the jungle with the poisonous and greedy deeds of the oil company, Texaco. The essay begins with an idyllic recollection of a night on the Napo River. Dillard recounts the Jesuit’s music, the fireflies, and the way “[e]ach star…seemed to tremble and stir with my breath” (72). The entire scene seems to embody the untouched innocence of life in the jungle. Quickly, however, the tone shifts from peaceful and picturesque to violent as the narrative jumps forward in time, discussing Texaco’s future infractions against the almost-sacred jungle.