Creon has the appearance of good, but when he chooses to not bury Polyneices, which goes against the beliefs of the Gods by not honoring him, he shows his tragic flaw. He says, “But Polyneices, killed as piteously, an interdict forbids that anyone should bury him or even mourn.” (192). Through disobeying the Gods, Creon implies that his laws are more important than the Gods. Creon’s disregard towards the Gods, explains why he dismisses Tiresias’s power. Creon’s overall power grants him his free will.
In this case, the misgivings following the escape of the cyclops-inhabited island were the wrath of Poseidon. And while enduring the punishment of one god, Odysseus admits to a lack of free will, “hardly landlocked of…free will,” then reasons, “I…have angered one of the… gods,” and interrogates a nearby immortal, “which one of you blocks my way” (Homer 2006: 148). However, critics might point out that Odysseus was not a definitively pious hero considering his infidelity, excessive cruelty, and tensions with Poseidon, and Odysseus only sought divine intervention in dangerous situations. Where he lacks in piety, Odysseus makes up for in favorable traits–heroic characteristics that appeal to others in his society as well as a number of Gods including Athena, “[Odysseus is] far the best at tactics…and I am famous…for wisdom” (Homer 2006: 389). And with what diminished piety and favorability among the Gods Odysseus has at the end of his journey, he still admits to losing free will when the Gods
“The sacred rights of mankind,” writes Alexander Hamilton, “are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power”. In his response to Samuel Seabury’s argument for obedience to the king, Hamilton invokes the sacred rights of mankind–universal truths echoing down through the past and reaching far into the future–as his basis for rebellion. These sacred and universal rights form the foundation for politics, which undergirds not only the arguments of the Founding Fathers, but Classical Republicanism itself. The success of politics hinges upon its universality.
Socrates was one of the main leaders of ancient Greek philosophy. His declaration that honor is an ideal for which to "live and die" represents how justice was held with the highest esteem in ancient Greek Society. As you might expect, the cataclysm in Antigone treats the integrity of justice by characterizing two opposing concepts of law and pitting them against one another. However, the tragic play does not come out with a verdict deciding which perception of law is correct, but it does raise doubts with the idea of the constitution of justice. The events that happen before the beginning of the play are crucial to understanding the ideas of play.
In the story 'The Most Dangerous Game', the character Zaroff states,"The weak were put on earth for the strong 's pleasure." I believe this statement is incorrect. One reason it's incorrect is because there is no such thing as a weak person. Another reason I believe that it's incorrect, is for no one is put on earth to solely please anyone.The last reason I believe it is incorrect, is because the world as a whole has changed. I believe the statement is wrong, because there is no such thing as a "weak person".
Self-Sacrifice and happiness are two topic that Ayn Rand argues about in a very objective and intellectual style, but because of the way she misinterpreted selfishness was wrong, the explanation of self-sacrifice was misleading. Rand fails to see the point of how society views happiness and fails to convey it. Rand argues that the society defines selfishness as it’s the “synonym of evil” or “brutes who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve their own ends.”(7). Even though this is not the case at all this is subjective and the interpretation is biased, one cannot disregard the part where she said “brutes who tramples over”. This is in fact a great way of to show how people in the society see the term selfishness but considering the fact
Some of the lessons to rulers found in “The Prince” most famously, the shield of heartlessness towards subjects has led to the judgement that Machiavelli book is evil or not moral. Moreover, the direct split of politics from ethics and attitude seems to pinpoint that there is no role for any kind of charity in Machiavelli’s state. However, Machiavelli’s never promotes heartlessness or other vices for their own well being. He promotes them only in the interests of protecting the state, which, in Machiavelli’s aspect, is a type of ultimate good in its very own right. Nor does he promote that virtue should be disdained for its own sake.
And ultimately Dodds supports his views of Oedipus free will by stating, “The immediate cause of Oedipus’s ruin is not “Fate” of “the gods” – no oracle said that he must discover the truth – and still less does it lies in his own weakness: what causes his ruin is his own strength and courage, his loyalty to Thebes, and his loyalty to the truth. In all this we are to see him as a free agent” (224). What Dodds means is that Oedipus life troubles are not determined by a divine power, no statement confirmed that Oedipus was going to find out the mystery about his past. The devastating truth left Oedipus defenseless, provoking his ruin. According to Dodds, Oedipus’s character and loyalty caused his devastating
In chapter three we discovered that Rawlsian fairness requires that we give up our surplus to provide what others lack. This impartial perspective can only be achieved, however, under what Rawls terms a ‘veil of ignorance’ experienced by an autonomous legislator or an impartial spectator, respectively. Actually, Rawls argues at great length why we should accept the difference principle, namely because no one knows behind the veil of ignorance if he might end up as the least well-off, giving him a reason to adopt a risk-avoiding strategy, i.e. implementing the difference principle. It is prima facie unfair, according to Rawls, to allow the least-well-off to starve to death simply because of their own bad luck, which merely appears to point to ‘formal impartiality’ as ‘formally concerning for all’.
However, these pursuits of vengeance do nothing to provide any sort of moral reconciliation: two eyes are lost instead of just one under Hammurabi’s code, and Internet mob shaming only serves to ruin people’s lives instead of combating real world problems. Throughout both literature and life, the inefficacy of hostility in providing true conciliation has been an often repeated phenomenon, with the former realizing this more often. In Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontё, characters’ decisions to stop acting cruelly towards others provide moral reconciliation, illustrating that a positive resolution can only happen when one lets go of hostility. For example, the fact that the younger Catherine’s choice to stop mocking Hareton eventually results in a relationship between the two demonstrates that letting go of prejudice towards another can result in the formation of positive relationships that bring happiness. Upon learning that Hareton is her cousin, Catherine shirks him,