Ransom's Virtue Analysis

Instead of truthfully being honest, religious and merciful, he told one that you should fake it, so that when the time arrives, you can switch your personality. Castiglione commended the disposition of honesty when not knowing information, so then one can save themself trouble down the road when one accidentally states offensive information. The prospect of open mindedness also agreed with his writing, when a courtier was in an argument, having an open mind to come to a resolution would help so the problem doesn’t get out of hand. And Castiglione complied with mental strength, it was told to courtiers by him to have self restraint over one’s self so it would eliminate anything said to be rude. Washington had concured also with all three traits of an ideal person.

The indirect characterization of the Pardoner, in consideration of his objective stance towards his own wrongdoings, reveals him to be a man with conscious partial to his intents and basic motivation. The Pardoner explicitly states his reason for sermonizing as his “exclusive purpose is to win and not at all to castigate their sin” (p. 243). With brutal honesty and in meticulous fashion, the Pardoner embraces his love for profit and monetary gains in spite of his pious occupation. Though the actions and impressions of the Pardoner are both distasteful and lacking in morals, it is the same hypocritical disposition that highlights the depth and good of the character. While not righteous or honorable in any traditional sense, the Pardoner argues that he is appropriate to preach against his personal vice of greed due to his understanding of the sin and that in the process he is able to truly assist others in the relinquishment of their faults.

There were characteristics like his appearance, intelligence, and thoughts. He considered it a curse that he was different from others, because it was against the law to think individual thoughts, or be superior to others (Anthem, pg.1). Though he could tell he was a lot different from others, because they tend not to take risks, or fear discoveries of the world. For example, when Equality 7-2521 and International 4-8818 discovers the tunnel, International says “The will of the Council is above all things, for it is the will of our brothers, which is holy. But if you wish it so, we shall obey you.

Slim contends Curley’s selfish thoughts by saying, “‘But you jus’ tell an’ try to get this guy canned and we’ll tell ever’body, an’ then you will get the laugh”’(Steinbeck 64). Slim confirms that he is only doing what is right when he jeopardizes his own security of well being. While conducting these procedures may not be prefered or may put his job security at stake, Slim asserts his thoughts concluding that these are the right actions to

But, unlike his meeting with disguised Athena, Eumaios talks to Odysseus, disguised as a beggar, about his admiration and longing for his former lord Odysseus. Hearing Eumaios proclaimed love and loyalty for him, Odysseus is much more comfortable and unthreatened by Eumaios and feels no need to assert himself the same way he did to disguised Athena. So when asked to tell his tale, Odysseus, still disguised as the beggar, tells a much more pitiable lie. Odyssey says that he is from Krete, for the same reason as before, and born to a wealthy father, Kastor Hylakides, and his slave, but was treated as a legitimate son. However, when his father dies he is given a very poor portion of the land due to his Brothers, born to Kastor Hylakides true lady.

The riddle shows how ignorant and also how knowledgeable Oedipus really was. Like mentioned earlier, Oedipus knew the riddle was about him, but he chose to deny it. He chose his ignorance over his knowledge. This shows that even though he chose ignorance then, when he confronted Tiresias he chose knowledge over ignorance. It is known that “ the truth shall set you free”,but i personally believe it did the opposite for him and his

Ego Ego is a holy word for Equality 7-2521 tHe main character in Anthem by Ayn Rand. The definition of ego is a person’s self-esteem or self-importance. Where Equality 7-2521 grew up men were taught that the word “ego” was a synonym for evil and selflessness, but Equality didn’t believe that. Being an egoist can be both good and bad, Equality was someone who held his truth above everything else in the world, so would he be considered an egoist? In Equality’s world, to be in egoist was bad, in the speech The Soul of an Individualist it states that “Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue.”, since men such as Equality were taught of that, then he would have been taught to believe not to be an egoist.

Bartolome de las Casas is used by Zinn for many of the sources of the cruelty against the natives, but even Zinn admits that "his figures are exaggerations"(). However, Zinn still puts Bartolome under much less criticism than Columbus even though the priest did his share in being cruel to natives; this was most likely because he wanted to make the point that Columbus should not be so heroized. Overall, the monarchy of Europe is truly to blame for sending the greediest men with orders only to extract wealth from the New World. Whether or not America should celebrate Columbus Day is a highly debatable topic, but it should not really be celebrated or called after a relatively cruel man. Columbus just happened to be in charge of the right ship with a gamble that turned out to make him extremely successful, but he did not have anything, besides good seamanship to make him any more exciting than the average

Even if it means letting innocent people die for crimes they did not do. Arthur Miller makes it clear that having a good name is more important that the truth, Proctor, Parris, and Danforth all decided their name and reputation was more important than the lives of innocent people. Their decisions went deeper and deeper and made things get worse. Having a good name effected how Proctor acted because he doesn 't want to tell the truth about things he knows just to keep his name. Reputation effects Parris because, he doesn 't want to go against the bible and be accused of working with the devil.

This actually makes sense and it is a possibility because Twain did not talk about genes and when readers say that Huck’s nature is stronger than nurture, it is only an speculation they made from what they understand from the book and the excerpt. However, even though it that the argument “Huck’s nature side is more obvious than nurture” might be an speculation, it makes more sense because readers can see that Huck would rather go to hell and readers can make an educated guess that if Huck were to be properly nurtured, he would deem going to hell for a slave a crime and an unlawful act. No matter how much the Widow Douglas tries to conform Huck to society’s way, he disapproves of it and wants no part it in. It is too late for the Widow Douglas to change Huck into someone who follows the law and rules of society because Huck’s early “environmental influences” has lead him to deviate from society. It is Huck’s nurture side that makes him who he is-- someone who is willing to free a slave.

He states the that any law that brighten ups “human personality” is a just law and any law that devalues human personality is an unjust law. MLK finishes of by saying that segregation is sinful. He finds this out by breaking it in to part like so; separation is sinful, segregation laws separate, and therefore segregation laws are sinful. Finally, after explaining why he disobeys some laws he makes it clear to the clergymen that segregation laws are unjust and sinful. Thus, he strongly believes that the Jim crow law should be disobeyed because they are “morally wrong” (par.

For my essay I chose the the question “Do you blame Sucker for turning on Pete so completely” and the point of view I am taking is yes. For one reason I am saying yes is because of the way Pete treated him even though all Sucker did was try to love him and respect him. If Pete did what he did to Sucker to me, it wouldn’t have lasted that long and I would have got mad earlier. Another reason is that Pete liked Sucker when he was getting what he wanted which was Maybell. Think how you feel if you loved your cousin and he didn’t even like you unless he gets his way.

According to Hegal, If Abraham is a “father of faith”, then he shouldn’t do something a human would do that is considered irrational, which is murdering people to prove God exist. God mustn’t tell us to do something irrational to society that can be labeled “evil to us, for he is above all and morally perfect. However for us human beings, we need to follow something that IS powerful than us and can lead us to something great at the end. Thus, we question when do we ignore something that is not considered ethical. Hegal wants to prove that he Abraham can be the “tragic hero” of the story, but he can still make rational decisions by his own and not by his “God” he follows.

With higher morality, theists claim that human understanding is too limited for us to understand. Johnson plays off that point by saying that God’s morality is meaningless to us if higher morality is the case. “But it is a strange ‘higher morality’ which claims that what we call ‘bad’ is good and what we call ‘good’ is bad” (Johnson 123). It would be like someone claiming that because Hitler liked children of the right race, then he is a good person despite all the evil he did. Hick, however, might relate higher morality back to the hedonistic world mentioned in the argument above.

Immanuel Kant and Blaise Pascal offer contrasting opinions concerning reason, or man’s ability to come to conclusions on his own. In Metaphysics of Morals, Kant provides an optimistic view of reason, depicting that reason can attain certain conclusions. Pascal argues in Pensees that man is inherently flawed and can’t be certain from reasoning while faith, or belief in the supernatural, is the only thing that can create certainty. Kant’s positive outlook on human reason is a sound assertion, although it doesn’t necessarily create a rupture between faith and reason because despite reason’s capabilities of reaching universal truths, faith compensates for potential mishaps made by reason and provides a more in depth knowledge when combined with reason. Reason is satisfactory in reaching conclusions because reason can identify universal truths.