The citizens, in mass numbers, have the potential to overrule corruption in the government and in banks, but the power of the people is rarely used with such intentions. If each person recognized “that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed” (Grapes 306), then governments would no longer be so controlling in people’s lives. Steinbeck portrays that the government’s attempts to keep the people repressed only unite everyone with a common interest: being freed from repression. People also overlook their capability to resolve issues; many believe they are not influential enough, but in reality, working together is the most effective form of opposition to the government.
Refugees don’t choose to lead this life but instead are forced to. And as stated above, there is a silver lining to accepting refugees. The least anybody can do is to show them love and kindness and help them build better lives for themselves in contrast to turning a blind eye and pretending that everything will eventually go back to normal. As it appears to be, the situation does not seem likely to decrease in the foreseeable future, and this short-term thinking of various impacts it may have on the country may lead to bigger and longer-term problems for the local economy. Keeping refugees outside the borders of the country appears to be more expensive in the long run than taking them in and thus intensifies the tab for taxpayers.
The story “The cost of survival” states that “It is easy to argue that people should be stopped from putting themselves in danger. However, this would be impossible to enforce”. It is impossible to stop somebody from doing these risky things but you can’t stop them from doing the things that they enjoy and make them happy. The story also says that “ We know that when people believe that they are going to receive a large bill for SAR mission, they delay a call for help or they refuse to to call for help.”. It would be unfair that someone wouldn't call for help because they are going to be billed for getting help.
The way that Walter thinks is that if he had lots of money he would be better and act different, but sometimes people with too much don’t really act like they enjoy and also money never solves big problems but walter thinks it will. I believe that if you have too much money you think that everything is going so well at the moment and you don't care about spending money, but one day something could occur and you will lose all of so this just shows that no one should rely on money. In life you need to make sacrifices that could be should i spend money on an investment that could be helpful and help out my family in the future or if that I should buy something so I could help out my family instead of later. I believe that you should always help out the family when they are in need because something could happen and it could all go away. Having money should never define the person you are because you could be rich you could just be rude and not help anyone and be selfish and if you are wealthy you could have the nicest heart and be very helpful to people that are in need.
Gatsby’s downfall suggests that equal opportunities to achieve success in life don’t really exist, people take advantage of far too many things that it begins to ruin it for many people in the long run. Hopefully we have realized that it is always more beneficial to be less selfish and more selfless so that we all can have the lives that we were created to have without any lousy fool ruining it for us. Daisy may have loved Tom for his money, but she also loved him for his
Also, the evidence seems reasonable, but does not support that the Socs have a more difficult life because the Socs could have talked to their parents and explain what he felt. The Socs would also use, “ You get a little money and the whole world hates you.”( Hinton, 1965, pg.117) The opposing idea is not correct because if the Socs actually felt that the whole world hated them, they should have done something good with their money, instead of spending it on themselves. Also, the opposing side is wrong because the Socs could have solved this struggle by giving some money away. The greasers just wanted to live their life, but everyday they had to deal with the Socs, money, and being judged. The greasers struggles matter because it shows us the real cruelty of the world, of what some people have to go through in life.
According to theory the outcomes will be judged weather the action was morally right or wrong. As per this theory the outcome of any action should minimize the pain and maximize the pleasure. The utilitarianism have two groups one is the Act utilitarian’s focun on the effects of individual actions (Such as Nathuram Godse’s assassination of Mahatma Gandhi) and another is rule utilitarian’s those focus on the effects of types of actions (such as killing or stealing) Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders
I feel that protesting is a weak form of resisting the government, it might catch some attention, but not enough to take the argument anywhere. I also disagree with an individual having the right to resist government, because every American citizen has to abide by some set rules or laws, so it wouldn’t be fair to have one or multiple people not abiding by those requirements. I feel that society would be more chaotic if everyone had the right choose what they wanted to follow. In a perfect world, Henry Thoreau’s methods of civil disobedience would have been a great idea, depending on what laws one was refusing to obey, but in his time period and in ours it just wouldn’t work having everyone doing what pleased them. That’s why the government, as stubborn as it can be and as much as we may disagree with it at times, has to instill laws so that the world can be a calm and orderly
Why isn 't the theory realistic? Give an example as to why the theory is broken? The theory of utilitarianism does not consider justice for all. If we are only concerned with what 's right for the benefits of the majority, that means the minority will be left out. The theory is broken in regards to the example illustrated because most people would save their family member.
Individuals will compare the cost and reward of their decision by which scenario benefits them more and cost them less. Now, one key element in rational choice theory is the belief that all action is fundamentally "rational " in character. (thoughtco.com) This differentiates it from other theories because it denies the essences of any other actions other than rational. So in all I would say that the dramaturgy theory complements the exchange theory, and would disagree with the rational choice theory. Even though, they are very close in ideal principles, rational choice doesn 't quite fit the theory of dramaturgy as well as exchange theory.