One of his friend’s suicide himself because of PTSD he saw men dead and seeing them die like no other human should see. His friends next to him got shot and died while suffering. His three great friends died and then Angelo killed himself for seeing that image in his head all the time. Odysseus catches PTSD for the same reason Angelo catches PTSD but Odysseus doesn’t kill himself. The second
This is similar to what Zimmerman did to Trayvon. Instead of asking Singing Boy if he was lost or who he was, he just killed him. Zimmerman did the same thing to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman killed Trayvon based off of false judgment. This relates to my thesis because judging people causes fear and tragedy to occur.
A part of him seeing himself as not being a hero is when he lost innocence. The second text, ‘The Patriot’, shows the loss of innocence of the main character’s two younger sons. The director deliberately uses a mid-shot to show the two young boys, killing a number of men. Even though these boys did not want to kill the men, their father forced them to. This happened because the men they killed just killed their brother.
I disagree with her because I think it is not a good solution. It is just clearing the issue not solving a problem. In my idea when we see something we have to choose the positive parts of it and try to improve them and we have to find ways to change the negative parts. I believe that chivalry is a good manner even if there is some misjudgment about it today or even if it has some problems, but the main point of chivalry is still good. I think forgetting a good behavior and trying to leave it in the past is not logical.
Haimon my son, so young, so young to die, I was the fool, not you; and you died for me.” Creon implores that he has been blinded by his pride and that he didn’t see that Haemon’s ultimatum and love for Antigone would be the reason why Haemon would kill himself. Creon’s decisions have lead him to lose his son and his wife, which is where his downfall begins. Creon becomes the tragic hero because he has endured pain from the deaths of his family. By not listening to Teiresias or anyone, but only to himself because he believes what he is doing is right, the death of his loved ones were
On the other hand being a bystander or being neutral is letting thousands of innocent lives die at your hands. This inaction by the decisions of a country influences people to deem their self interests more important than the unity and prosperity of the human race as a whole. Neutrality is a very hard decision and can have a number of different impacts both positive and negative, which is highly controversial but neutrality should not be used as a decision for a country.
Being virtuous, then, is doing something for no other reason than to be good. Choosing to be nice or do good things for others with the motivation to have them help you in some way later, have them like you more, or really any reasoning other than just wanting to do something nice and good for them for nothing in return is what constitutes a person as being non-virtuous. I think virtue ethics can stand on its own without supplementation, but it requires more thought and action on the individuals part than simply looking to a set of rules for all the
Alexander tortured many of his victims and then he killed them. Another reason why he was a villain because he killed members of his family so that he would become the ultimate successor to the throne. This should never be how a king becomes the ruler of his kingdom, ever. Even though I believe that Alexander the Great is a villain, others may think he was a hero. They may think that because he had conquered so many other nations.
To be virtuous you have to make choices for the right reason, the choices that are made have to follow the components to virtue to be considered virtuous. Aristotle voiced, “Also, we are angry and frightened without choice, but the virtues are certain kinds of choices, or not present without choice” (1106a 2-4). Not all choices are going to be virtuous ones because of the choices that are made. Not all choices have a good outcome and they could potentially not become a virtuous person. Aristotle deemed, “And for these reasons, the virtues and vices are not predispositions either, since we are not called good or bad, nor are we praised or blamed, simply for being predisposed to feel something” (1106a 7-9).
Greitens is in a defensive position so any response would be risky but would likely not hurt him more than he has already been hurt. Greitens and his team are not following Ivy Lee’s standards as well because in Lee’s book the best thing to do is to have institutional openness, find positive angles and be straight. By staying silent, the Greitens team is not being transparent, positive or straight forward with what’s going on and leaving many confused and curious as to what may come. Overall, by using both the dialogic theory and Ivy Lee’s standards, it would be more beneficial to Greitens to respond to the crisis than it would for him to remain