The hurricane hits the Outer Banks, and a ship sunk and was drowning. There were people in the ship, and the surf men rescued a baby boy, his mother, and two other sailors. Nathan’s realize that he could never be able to do what the surf men were doing, but he helped the baby and the injured sailor because he learned what to do in the medical books. Name of protagonist: Nathan, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Meekins, Mr.Pugh, Mrs.Gardiner Conflict: The conflict of the story is that the surf men went rescued sailors whose ship sunk and were drowning in a storm, but it was hard to save them. Resolution: The resolution is that surf men could save everybody from the ship and Nathan helped the rescuers thanks to what he learned from the medical books.
Simon helps the others in all sorts of different ways. When the ship passes by the island Ralph is angry and hopeless: “Simon put out his hand, timidly, to touch Ralph…” (67). Simon is trying to comfort Ralph in his time of need. Ralph is afraid that they’ll never get off the island and that the ship was their only chance Simon know that they’ll get off and even says it when Ralph is longing for home: “You’ll get back to where you come from” (111). This quote tells how Simon knows Ralph will get back and is trying to give Ralph some hope in this dark time of depression.
I personally think that it wasn’t necessarily wrong for Simon to be silent on the Nazi’s bedside. What could Simon say really since this young man was asking for something that Simon couldn’t really give him? If he had said something it might have hurt the soldier emotionally but it might have been good for Simon to let out his feelings. This soldier was also asking at a particularly bad time. He’s afraid of death and wants to feel somewhat relieved knowing that someone can forgive him for what he has done.
While Socrates arguments may be sound in his opinion, I'm not sure if I agree with them. Just because of the good laws of the state benefited Socrates and helped him in his upbringing, it doesn't mean that he has to remain completely loyal to them for his entire life. His main point about never returning an unjust act with another makes sense to a degree, but only if you agree with his view that the soul is the only thing that matters and not the body. While I understand that point, I don' think every unjust act ruins the soul. Some acts such as telling a white lie in some situations are
Even though Lennie is a different person from the other people, he has good intentions. Lennie is not smart enough but he can be a good friend. He is loyal and people can trust him. That the reason why George is Lennie’s friend. George does not care about Lennie’s situation and he trust in him as Lennie trust in George.
I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have. For example, a blind man cannot help another blind man to cross the road. It is very important to note here that before you help anyone, you must be capable of helping. In short, Peter Singer’s analysis that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” is uncompromisingly convincing and the pragmatic use of this conclusion would help have better human relations.
Humans have more opportunities and chances on the way they want there life to be and animals really don’t have the choice even though they could also live where they want to live. Like I had said before, it would be nice to live like a weasel, but think about it, living like a weasel really means not caring for what others do, say. Like Henry David Thoreau stated, “Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right from wrong, but conscience”? We have the right to live how we want and where we want and by doing what we want, we are willing to face the consequences. Humans also have to worry about the ecnmical burden that comes with every thing.
It also states that it is our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. We should help others out of moral reasoning. According to Singers arguments our traditional moral categories are wrong and need to be corrected (Singer, 1972). Peter Singer thinks that we should correct our moral standards and work towards our moral sensibilities. Working towards our moral sensibilities will reflect the fact that there is no distinction between dutiful acts and supererogatory acts.
However, other people may disagree with this and believe that a deontological ethical system is not defensible because it cannot encourage human beings to act morally, as they will not gain enough satisfaction out of doing so, as they would in a teleological ethical system where the ultimate end or goal is human happiness. People may say that it can be hard to keep to deontological ethics when we cannot see how they will immediately benefit us, making teleology much more appealing. In my opinion deontology can be defended because deontologists do not judge actions by their consequences, this is a positive aspect of deontology because it does not allow people to do bad things to secure good consequences, if we really consider human happiness, at first it sounds appealing and simple. However, if all actions were done to secure human happiness then many evil deeds would be permitted, for example it may secure a psychopath with maximum happiness if he can rape and murder women and children. Therefore teleology would permit this as it would maximise the psychopaths happiness.
By not allowing his civilization to slip away, Simon is able to understand what the beast truly is: it is a savage instinct that is inside all of the boys that influences their every decision. Simon also shows morality when he tries to explain to the other boys that the beast does not exist. It would be easier for him to go along with Jack, and blend in with the crowd, but that is not his character. Simon knows that the beast does not exist, and he cannot be swayed away from this belief, because it would be against his moral