The Prince has elicited debate amongst generations of readers for its seemingly ruthless approach to statecraft and its abandonment of conventional morality. What Machiavelli recommends may seem, in a different political context to the stability of interstate relations today, to be shocking or immoral. However, such an interpretation fails to consider that The Prince is very much made by and for the real world. Machiavelli’s prescriptions are tailored to circumstances where society is already immoral by human nature and is blighted by disorder. Thus this essay will posit that Machiavelli is not motivated by immorality but rather pragmatism, in his advocacy of the means necessary to achieving an ‘end’ of stability and security for the collective good of the people.
This ironic hindsight into the war also gives the audience a sense of the inspector's wisdom. He is portrayed as the conscience because all throught the play the Inspector is seen as guiding the Birling's away from sin, trying to teach them selflessness and responsibilty for others, in this sense the style of the play is one of morality.We see an opinion of responsibility through the inspector's attitude torwards the sinful actions of the Birling family. He attempts to make Sheila accept her share of the blame 'you're partly to blame'. The Inspector's speech on page 56 of the play clarifies for the audience and
The Importance Of Morality which Reform Villains into Aspired Good Guys As we observe Sam Peckinpah’s film “Ride the High Country”, we come to witness the importance of morality and integrity. This film clearly depicts characters struggling to maintain a sense of morality. And it is through the struggle of obtaining morality that Gil Westrum and Heck Longtree become villians/bad guys that evolve into good guys. As we observe Gil Westrum and Heck Longtree we come to see that both characters initially are very deceptive and lack integrity and morality. When we first are introduced to Longtree’s character he shows his sense of deception in the opening scene regarding the Camel race.
[Title] [Introduction] [Nick] In The Great Gatsby the character Nick Carraway acts as the narrator. He starts the story off by comparing himself to the world. He claims to be a moral person who can resist the urge to judge the people around him because if he holds them up to his own moral standards, his expectations will be too high for them. He even goes as far to say that the world would be better if everyone thought as he did and withheld their judgments about their peers. Now, even though Nick is the storyteller, this arrogant self-description shows that he is not reliable due the fact that he thinks of himself as superior to the masses.
More precisely, one can think of Kant’s categorical imperative as the equivalent of the superego in Freud’s account. Kantian morality becomes the fundamental reason for man’s unhappiness, since there is no way of satisfying even a portion of man’s natural desires in such a moral philosophy. However, Freud’s criticism of an uncompromising set of morals like Kant’s does not mean that Freud is absolutely against morality. In fact, Freud recognizes the importance of morality and society insofar as they make man’s survival less painful and to the extent that they minimally conflict with man’s
Secondly this essay will discuss the logical concept of absolute truth while highlighting a few weaknesses of relative truth. Finally, this essay will evaluate the entertainment factor of torture as wrong, based on the argument that a transcultural moral standard of what is right and wrong does indeed exist and how and why this argument is a convincing one indeed. Moral relativism is the theory that what is considered virtuous conduct and right and wrong varies between different cultural contexts and societal situations and is nonexistent in the general abstract. The disagreement argument accounts for the seemingly obvious fact that different cultures have different moral beliefs leading to moral disagreements demonstrating that morality is merely a product of personal or cultural opinion. However, while moral agreements may never be reached fully and are difficult to establish, mere disagreement does not mean there is no absolute truth to pursue.
But it takes the ability to be yourself and not conform or follow others. Emerson alludes to many great historical figures such as “Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton.” This says you could be misunderstood today but your ideals and thoughts are great. Don’t hide yourself. Like Diplo, “express yourself.” Emerson feels the plagiarism of another’s own character and qualities to be an outrage and how each and every person should have their own unique identities that are meaningful to them saying, “Envy is ignorance…”and “…imitation is suicide.” Emerson also uses a powerful metaphor, stating, “…no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him
The representation of love within “Much Ado about Nothing” is in its finality and basic format is commonly perceived as socially appeasing and harmonious, as outstanding abnormalities are resolved. Although these aforementioned abnormalities are from which the majority of comedic instances are derived from. Stemming from the anarchic characters of Benedick and Beatrice who unlike their conventional counterparts, vilify and harangue the proposed concept of ‘conventional love’ that is preached throughout the piece. The couples themselves in behaviour and innate moral values seem to juxtapose one another, politically correct versus anarchy. Claudio and Hero share a conventionality, and compliant behaviour which contrasts sharply with Benedick's/Beatrice’s independent spirit, jaded opinions about the opposite sex, and their shared eccentric wit.
Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual. The Enlightenment was also based on logic and humaneness was coming in to the picture. First of all, Baccaria’s saw torture as inadequate criminal justice procedures, since torture was adopted as a common technique to determine whether an individual was guilty or innocent through use of pain. This in Baccaria’s eyes is deemed as useless. Since the tortured party can be proven guilty or innocent based on their pain tolerance, if an individual who has committed a crime and is being tortured however their pain tolerance is very high and they are able to take the pain they may be judged as innocent, however if and individual is innocent or guilty has a low pain tolerance and is not able to cope with the pain and confesses then it no longer matters whether he committed the crime or not, thus making
And so, Hester, I drew thee into my heart, into its innermost chamber, and sought to warm thee by the warmth in which thy presence made there!” (69). Chillingworth’s compassion and desire for love and good, over the cruel and evil atmosphere he later develops, reveals that he was not always wandering down the road of revenge, but was a man of virtue. His spiraling fall into malice and morally self destructive actions only occur after he sets himself down the road to find the other person who wronged him, the man who shares his wife’s sin, and take vengeance upon him. Roger continues his personal decline by betraying his human nature and turning to a more demonic nature. “The physician advanced directly in front of his patient, laid his hand upon his bosom, and thrust aside the vestment that, hitherto, had always covered it even from the professional eye.