Now, some may call him a foolish, selfish, and unethical man who does not deserve the title of a leader, much less a king. People say, Odysseus lacks the ethnicity or lacking the common leadership skills. It is said that Odysseus was also very dishonest. In the end, yes no leader is perfect, but the best is Odysseus. Wouldn’t you give up anything and everything to save your family?
If someone is willing to kill off their own family, then how can one know they will not kill others to stay in power? The audience could say this makes him unfit to lead. This argument is not valid, because we see that his being a ruler of Rome and having no bad feelings between him and his fellow leaders allows them to win in the end. They work together to bring justice, and without justice there is disorder. And when you are a leader, disorder can turn others against you.
However, we don’t feel they should be exempt from punishment due to their freedom of speech; their posts were gravely inappropriate and offensive. They intentionally discriminated against a group of people; they had no regards to other’s statuses as human beings which in our honest opinion is extremely unethical. Every human being should be treated with respect regardless of their culture, ethnicity, race, gender, etc. Johnny's leadership roles within his school simply doesn’t convince us that he was bullied into discriminating others, so we feel that he too should face the consequences. As a leader he should have known better.
Following the departure of the Persians from Greece, Sparta attempted to prevent the rebuilding of Athens’ walls. It was suspicious of the Long Wall project, which would fortify the route from the city to the harbour of Piraeus. However, the Spartans were rebuffed by Themistocles, who stated that Athens would see herself as an equal partner in the alliance between the two states. Afterwards, in 464 BC, when an earthquake in Sparta caused the helots to revolt, various Spartan allies, including Athens, sent forces to help quell the rebellion. However, the Spartans, fearing that Athens would side with the helots and turn against them, dismissed the Athenian force upon its arrival, while allowing the forces of other allies to remain.
Alexander had a cruel and a somewhat good side at times. Alexander the Great wasn’t really a great leader/king after all. Even though he had conquered many lands at his time, that doesn’t mean that he should have been given the title “the Great.” A king respects his people and doesn’t do cruel actions in order to get what he wants, even though his father was a king, that doesn’t mean that he should have become one too; his father had achieved a lot but never got the same title that Alexander got. Alexander was a selfish person, who was hard to please, even when people were doing everything for him since he was their king. Alexander was given water since he was very thirsty because they were crossing the desert and the followers had gone to get water just for him, and instead of drinking it, he poured the water on the ground (Document D).
There are two characters in the play who killed Caesar for different purposes: one for the good of himself, one for the good of others. Shakespeare criticized selfish people in society by comparing Brutus with Cassius. Cassius murdered Caesar for his own personal benefit; he didn’t consider the happiness of the citizens and brought a destructive civil war. On the other hand, Brutus is a noble man; he considered the happiness of others and tried to save Rome from being ruled by a dictator. According to the play, we should have more concern on others and consider the group
Adams argument is another critical aspect into understanding the legacy of Caligula. The fact that Caligula was basically raised to understand ‘power’ as being an absolute entity, was dangerous in Roman aristocratic society. Caligula was simply acting the way he believed one should rule, especially when everyone was seemingly out to get him. However, aristocrats saw his acts as threatening, they wished to discredit him as best they could, and end up killing him over basically having the wrong upbringing. Geoff Adams offers a slightly distinctive focal point on Caligula’s life than that of Winterling.
For many reasons Andrew Carnegie was not a hero but a robber baron. In his personal life, business approach, and philanthropy he was not heroic. He would either just hide the bad things that he would do or just not do anything heroic. He basically a standard robber baron for the time. The only reason that some people think he was a hero was because he would trick the public or every once in awhile do something good.
Montag did was he thought was right according to him because Montag thought that he was protecting himself and Faber, killing him to give society a chance to change, and because Beatty did not want to live anymore. This could relate to our society now days with what our thoughts are with situations and decisions being morally right or wrong. People have different a different view and perspective on certain things but Montag’s view on this situation was that he needed to kill Beatty for many different
Though they did bring up a good point and it was enough to convince me to betray Caesar a man whom I loved dearly. I debated the idea for a while but I knew they were right Caesar was to ambitious and if he ever reached his goal he could become very dangerous for Rome. I Brutus was not about to sit by and watch as Rome fell into ruin because of another tyrant. My ancestor made sure to put an end to the line of tyrants that had ruled Rome and to let another rise to power would make their achievements for a better Rome worth nothing. So I had to make a decision wait and see if Caesar would turn into a tyrant which by then it would already be too late, or I do something now that I would regret but will ultimately save Rome from another