In other words George never wanted Lennie to be treated poorly or be harmed, he wanted Lennie to be cared for, but since he killed Curley's wife they are no out looking for him. George can no longer protect Lennie, he rather end his life with happy feelings, than to suffer a terrible death. To conclude, killing is justifiable when it is a better of two outcomes. If dying is inevitable the less painful way is preferred. Even though, killing morality wrong, when asked, most people would want painless way out.
Frost chose to leave out the original part of the poem that said the world would end because he knew people would go into panic due to his words. Because, he was a highly recognized political man, he knew that people would listen to his theory on the world ending. While there is no specific culture talked about in Nothing Gold Can Stay, nature is a recurring theme throughout the text. Because of World War 2 starting to brew during this time, I know that Frost wrote this poem based on the reality of the world possibly ending versus a fantasy story. Nothing Gold Can Stay has a nostalgic mood to it because it reminds you of when things were beautiful and new when in present times it may be old and gone.
“No weapons, therefore, for either this night: unarmed he shall face me of face me he dares” (683-685). This quote shows that he will face Grendel without weapons and just his hands. This makes him very courageous because he's sacrificing his life going against Grendel let alone without weapons things like this in what make people envy him. “If we want to figure out what a symbol might mean you have to use a variety of tools on it: questions, experience, preexisting knowledge” (Foster 107). When reading Beowulf you
Even when their attempts for “change” are fruitless they resist disbanding to remain with their friends. There is proof that for some groups terrorism isn’t the last choice but the first. Some terror attacks are committed anonymously so how would that bring about any change. Unlike politicians who want to achieve change, terrorist refuse to compromise minimizing any possibility of archiving their goals. Finally, terrorist fight other terrorists, instead of acting like political entities they act more like rival
This proves that Candy knows what would happen to Lennie if he was not killed by George and knew that George didn 't want Lennie to die that way. After George kills Lennie Slim says this to George, “ You hadda, George. I swear you hadda. Come with me’ He led George into the entrance of the trail and up toward the highway” (Steinbeck). Slim knew George didn 't want to kill Lennie but it had to end that way so he tried to comfort George.
Macbeth refuses to take responsibility for all the pain he has caused and he doesn’t want to die without a fight, although this is the finish to all of Macbeths destruction he does not want to kill Macduff “Of all men else I have avoided thee; my soul is too much charged with blood of thine already” this metaphor used is showing how he already has so much blood on his hands, he doesn’t need any more, this can be seen as slight integrity but he still goes on to fight even though its already known of his deeds, “They have tied me to a stake; I cannot fly, but bear like I must fight the course”. It can be argued that his choices in these last scenes were based off integrity but his actions still faced no justice this way, he went into a fight willingly
So to stop Lennie from getting in more trouble he killed Lennie. Steinbeck wrote “ But I got you and” then Lennie says “And’ I got you.” Lennie finished his sentence because George was trying not to think about what he was going to do. He didn’t want Lennie to get killed, but he didn’t want him in a jail cell like an animal. So he just wanted him to be at peace where he will hurt no one. They have a true friendship.
Some people still wonder if war can be justified by its principles or cause. It can be argued that war can be justified due to the principles of freedom and justice that soldiers are willing to die for. However, many argue against this saying that war should be avoided at all costs due to collateral damage and the massive loss of innocent life. In the book My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier, Tim faces the biggest dilemma of his life when he has to decide whether to side with his brother who believes in the principles of war or his father who believes war should be avoided at all costs. When the novel comes to a conclusion, Tim decides that he is neutral and does not agree to either argument due to the irony contained within the deaths of
Ender even admits earlier that Colonel Graff was indeed right in his speculation of Ender not being able to kill off the bugger species if he had known exactly what he was doing. It is said when Ender exclaims, “I didn’t want to kill them all. I didn’t want to kill anyone! I’m not a killer” (Card 297). This statement
By beast at bay Rainsford is saying he doesn’t have anywhere to go, so he wants to fight Zaroff, until someone dies which is ironic because Rainsford states that he is against killing another human being when he first meets Zaroff at the beginning of the story. However, he is now ready to fight to the death, which shows that his opinion has changed. That just makes him no better than Zaroff “the murderer”. It seems as if Zaroff has passed on his role to Rainsford and he is now the new Zaroff. How else can he sleep so well if he feels remorse over killing a fellow human?
Epictetus’s way of philosophy is one that is purely Stoic, imploring that the solution to human finitude is one where humans can live life without showing feeling or complaining about pain and hardships towards unsavory situations. Each of his rules in his handbook offers advice in which the subject simply “deals” with disappointment, or rather, doesn’t expect something out of the scopes of reason and logic, so that, figuratively, when occurrences don’t go their way, they aren’t disappointed. This is because to Epictetus, all external events in life are pre-determined by fate, so it’s already out of our hands from the beginning. With a calm dispassion, or indifference, we approach our fate and accept it. This is shown in his rules in The Handbook,
McCarthy unlawfully accused American citizens of being Communist without substantial evidence. Senator McCarthy used his authority to spread anti-Communist hysteria across the nation in order to further his political career (“McCarthyism”). Thus proving the Second Red Scare was based upon hysteria and that Communism posed no real threat to American politics. The third example that proves the Second Red Scare was based upon hysteria not legitimate political threats is the investigations of the Loyalty Review Board. “By mid-1950, when more than 4 million people, actual or prospective employees, had gone through, the [Loyalty Review] boards had… dismissed or denied employment to 378… None of the discharged cases led to discovery of espionage” (“Anticommunist Hysteria”).
Secondly people need to not look at these as more of a warning. It 's not a felony charge, you are not going to go to jail or prison for it. Frank Trippett believes that we need to get rid of the minor charges because it puts you in a category with other people that are like repeat offenders. But if we did not have the consequences we do what is stopping these people from doing these things and before you know it, our country is going to be a wreck. Law and rules are put into effect for the betterment of mankind that is why we need to have people obeying them and learning from them at all
The responsibility was laid out to them clearly, but the decision to downplay this massacre would lead to events soldiers wished never happened. By omission and commission, they suppressed reports of the incident and submitted false or misleading accounts to higher headquarters. (My Lai Massacre) By suppressing the news of the massacre, Calley and his fellow officers just dug themselves a deep hole. Surely they should have expected the cause and effect from this small decision. Even if those claims made by Calley about the massacre were incorrect, since international law and the military code of conduct expressly forbade the killing of civilians, it was still the responsibility of the chain of command to ensure that Calley knew those policies.
He went further to say that they had so much trust for him that they looked up to him as a father and that he would ruin his relationship with them all for trade. Perrot in return suggested and pledged that if the “Dakota refused to obey him and “came in war against them,” Perrot pledged, he would declare them an enemy” (228). But even if Perrot did try to forge peace with these groups he knew that even if he were to make peace happen with the Dakota it would be hard to do so for him because he did not have the requirements to do