If you know that you are in risk of getting murdered, you would not like to hang out with someone with severe psychotic tendencies. Much less with someone that has psychotic tendencies and that has previously killed; as Lennie from Of Mice and Men, a book in which death was everywhere. To prevent death and suffering from spreading, George had to kill Lennie. If George wanted to save Lennie from suffering, he had to
If the assassination Could trammel up the consequences, and catch With his surcease success; that but this blow Might be the be-all and the end-all here, But here, upon this bank and shoal of time, We’d jump the life to come. But in these cases We still have judgement here…” (Macbeth 1.7.1-8). Macbeth passes back and forth trying to justify his reason for killing Duncan. He wants to become the leader and King but he understand if everything does not work out perfectly he could be punished beyond measure. If there was no consequences he would assassinate Duncan with no worries but committing treason worries him.
Of Mice and Men Essay In Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, George makes a decision in which he decides what is better for everyone. This decision has him kill his childhood friend. George’s actions were justified because he considered everyone his decision might affect. In Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, George’s actions were justified because he saved Lennie from torture, not ever experiencing happiness, and he did what benefitted society and Lennie. George shot Lennie in the back of the head which resulted in a less painful death than what awaited him with Curley.
The topic im talking about is from Mice and Men written by John Steinbeck. My argument is George should have killed Lennie because Curley would have killed him anyway. My second reason is if George didn’t Kill Lennie he would have died a more slow and painful death. The other side of the argument is that they were very close friends and Lennie never did anything to get killed. My first reason George should have shot Lennie is that Lennie would have suffered because Curley would have only shot him in the gut and let him die slowly.
Jack Hunter’s “How Gun Control Kills” takes a more logical stance on the current issue of gun control. However, Hunter starts off using pathos, an appeal to emotion, and ethos, appealing to ethics. “Is there an evil worse than killing children?” Hunter asks in the opening paragraph. “Is there anything more heart-wrenching than the feeling of absolute helplessness in our inability to protect them?” The first question tests the reader’s ethics by making them think about how serious a child’s death is to them, and if they could think of anything worse. The second question uses pathos to invoke desperation and sorrow for those who have experienced a situation where they were helpless and could not protect someone, specifically an innocent child.
This is suggesting that it was needed to free Russia from Nicholas’s power, even though he had already abdicated. Although it is understood that the purpose of killing his family was to ensure an end to the Romanov reign, these murders were unjust because the entire family along with their help was killed as well. Nicholas II was a poor government figure for Russia, however death was the incorrect punishment. An alternative plan would have been to imprison the family to prevent the Tsar’s children taking over power rather than killing them. The punishment was unjust for the Czar and his
Moral Truth comes into play when Hamlet is debating about whether or not to kill Claudius. He often debates on whether or not he would be justified in killing his own uncle. He knows that murder is wrong, but is it wrong to avenge his own father’s murder? This question is constantly in his head and part of the reason as to why he goes insane. He tries to plan out the murder of Claudius in a way that he will not feel guilty afterwards.
When Macbeth sent the murderers to kill Banquo, it was evil to do it for no reason, but it was good that he did not get told that he killed King Duncan. The author types,“The Murderers are street thugs. Some opportunities for comedy in early scenes, but should be downright terrifying in a fight. Hired hands who work as Macbeth 's personal assassins” (General OneFile 1). Instead of Macbeth killing Banquo, he hires murderers to kill him.
Montag killed Beatty he thought what he was doing was right. Montag was justified for killing Beatty because he thought he was protecting himself and Faber, Beatty had to die for society to change, and Beatty wanted to die. Montags anger towards Beatty may have persuaded his decisions and made him do what he did to Beatty. In the event that Montag killed Beatty, he was justified because he was protecting Faber and himself. In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury explains that Beatty kept pushing Montag’s limits.
Capital punishment. The big debate on who gets to decide whether someone lives or dies? Pacifist would say that it’s unethical and inhumane and that it is highly ironic that you’re killing those who kill, just to get the point across not to kill. Realist, like me, however, would retort back that by not ridding ourselves of these kind of people, it would feel as if we were just letting them get away with what they’ve done, without them knowing that there are serious consequences to your actions. The actions of certain criminals is the main reason why we need the death penalty.