It’s not just a line from the drill instructor; I believe it has a lot of meaning. It’s almost like Joker’s instructions to hide behind his public persona of a warrior, a facade that helps him get through the entirety of the film until after killing the female sniper in vengeance of Cowboys death, his ultimate war face has to be shown. All in vengeance of Cowboy being killed. The death of his best friend finally made him transform into a killer, he wanted to truly kill. But once he gets to the sniper he sees that not only is the sniper critically injured, but to the point they will die, but it’s a female sniper.
Han kills his wife with a throwing knife, but not intentionally only subconsciously meaning to, as events similar to in this story take place. Even if Margaret didn’t mean to kill Francis, she had it in her mind and heart to do so. This proves that she truly did have the intent to cause harm unto Francis and is truly a person forever changed by their
The significance of this memory is that it shows the reader that Ruth is fully aware of the fact that Matt is preparing to kill Richard that night and that she is also alright with letting him go and commit murder, and likely the only possible reason why a sweet woman like Ruth would be willing to let her husband murder another human being would be because of her grieving, and the belief this loss gave her and her husband that it was morally acceptable to kill Richard because he murdered their son. Overall, that is how Ruth appears to be suffering from loss as seen through her thoughts and
George is justified to kill Lennie because Lennie had a lot of consequences to take. George had to kill Lennie because he was going to die either way . In the novel, it said “I’m gonna get him. I’m going for my shotgun. I’ll kill the big son-of-a-bitch”(96).
Candy suspected that he was going to get canned soon so he knew had to do something. At the moment that Lennie and George articulated their feelings on where they were going to live he decided that was a good idea and it soon became his dream too. Since this was the case we already know how this dream was totally destroyed. Lennie became a murderer and ran to the spot where George told him to go if he got in any trouble. Now Candy is probably just going to die somewhere because some socially incompatible man decided to take the neck right out of Curley's wife's neck.
George comes up with a solution to shoot Lennie in the back of the head. It is right for George to kill Lennie because he is trying to protect the safety of others, and prevent Lennie from being shot painfully by Curley. To start with, George is right to kill Lennie to protect other people. For example, in chapter five, his intent of simply trying to feel her hair, leads to tragedy. His love of soft things somehow leads him into strangling
When George realized this he killed Lennie peacefully before the ranchmen could hurt him.George was justified in killing Lennie because if he wouldn 't have Curly and the other ranch men would have made Lennie 's death very painful while George killed Lennie nice and peacefully without pain. In the book Of Mice and Men there is an example of euthanasia, when
This evidence shows that Curley was going to kill Lennie, and do it in a vengeful and unforgiving way. George only wanted Lennie not to suffer a painful death in which he didn’t deserve. To achieve a painless death, George shoots Lennie in the back of his head to make for a quick and painless death. This is a time when killing is justifiable. In the novella, the author states “But Curley’s gonna want to shoot’im.
I think free choice is way more responsible for destruction of Macbeth rather than fate is because it is like karma, what comes around goes around. Since Macbeth had killed so many people it makes sense how in the end Macbeth had soon been killed himself. Macbeth thought the only way to survive in peace, he had to kill a bunch of people, which is completely unreasonable. The witches had told him his fate and that he would become king soon enough but he decided to go against his fate and make his own free choices. Macbeth caused his own destruction by his own reckless actions.
Dr. Rachels on the other hand believes that letting them die can be as morally worse as killing them. He explains this through the use of an example known as the Smith and Jones case. In this scenario Smith and Jones want to receive an inheritance so they both set out to drown their cousin. Smith ends up drowning his cousin while Jones goes to drown his cousin but notices his cousin is already drowning in the tub so he decides to let him die. Both men had the same motive and willingness to kill the child, but the only difference was one killed while the other let them die.