His depiction of a feared ruler disregards the prosperity of his people and does not account for their pursuit of happiness. They must live in fear and refrain from angering their malicious prince. A ruler should not be concerned with his own prosperity, instead, he should seek to benefit his people. I believe Machiavelli’s opinion on how a prince should rule is evil, and I find no justification in his
Following his time in Houyhnhnmland, Gulliver begins to see himself as a potential Houyhnhnm, a potentially perfectly reasonable and rational being. However, this state, of course, is not an option for man. The impossibility of perfect reason in man is presented to us clearly when Gulliver attempts to live a life of pure reason. As Kathleen Williams observed, “what is harmless and unavoidable self-satisfaction in a Houyhnhnm becomes in him a fanatic pride”. Pride is not a reasonable trait, it is a vice, one which, hypocritically, Gulliver himself particularly despises.
He was selfish, everyone else lacked spirit. He embodies selfishness throughout the book; Roark even explains to Gail Wynand that his motive is his own achievement. Near the end of the book Roark goes on trial where he praises selfishness and denounces altruism. He explained that a human’s natural instinct is to be selfish; he uses as an example of a complete egotist the creator. A creator stands alone way ahead of his time, against men; he who has never wanted to serve others whose only motive is his truth, his work done his way, his own achievement.
He states that hierarchy actually does not exist in the state of nature, as it alienates and chains most of the population. Because of this hierarchy, anyone under property owners and the wealthy consequently suffer and do not benefit from the modern social contract. This displaces power and puts a strong emphasize on one’s political life which in return only benefits individual interests. This despotic society where one class rules everything and corrupts the masses, through a liberal social contract, is what Rousseau deemed the most destructive
A proctor does not make decisions based on his reputation. He makes decisions based on his morals. It is his enemy who finds fault in a proctor to better his/her own reputation. Society – in the past, present, and future – will fabricate stories around the proctor in order to “protect” it. In Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Wickham is an example of an evil-minded man who calls calumny on an innocent man.
However, because individuals are imperfect creatures, so then the state of nature is also imperfect. Locke recognizes that a state of war is cultivated in the state of nature when a person violates the laws of nature: the inalienable rights of another. Individuals have the rights to enforce the laws of nature against those who violate and aid those whose rights have been violated (Locke 1982: 2, 8). But only then is there violence in the state of nature, the viciousness of humanity other theorists envisioned is lost in the theories of Locke and Rousseau. In fact, Rousseau explicitly criticizes the other theorists for not going far enough in their explanations.
This quote is an example of John Proctor threatening Abigail to get the outcome that he desires, the one that is best for him. He doesn't seem to care what the consequences for her are, he just wants to get himself and the people he cares about of the hook. It is a very selfish way to solve his problems. A great example of how selfish John Proctor is, it shows that he doesn't want himself getting caught with Abigail so he has to end things with her with very harsh language and a not so soft approach. He doesn't care if Abigail still has feelings and cant get over him, he only cares that he is not caught and thought of as a the bad and dishonorable man as he is.
He challenges the Kantian ideology of deontology and its connection with it actually being moral. He wanted to understand the origins of these morals and wanted to weaken the current human values and restyle the way morality is viewed. This led Nietzsche to his Genealogy of Morals which is divided into the noble morality that differentiates between good and bad and slave morality that differentiate between good and evil. He sides with noble morality since; it is an unconstrained affirmation of oneself as “good” and once this happens the rest is considered as bad. On the other hand, the slave morality was a reaction to the dominant noble morality, where it denounces its oppressors as “evil” and then declares oneself as well based on the choice of punishment taken (Nietzsche, 1994, p. 12-15).
Men are able to do anything they want. Hobbes thinks humans are inherently selfish and competitive creatures, and that they will stop at nothing to get what they want. The state of nature is a state of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos. Hobbes does believe the state of nature is a good way to live. You have no protection or peace of mind.
He notices that Jack is destroying nature and he chooses to do nothing. Another character that shows evil is Piggy. Piggy is extremely self-centered in his thinking. He believes that only his opinions are correct and other’s opinions are wrong. This is evident when Simon states his opinions on the Beast, and Piggy believes his ideas are crazy.