“The boy was dead the moment Mayella opened her mouth and screamed. It’s not right, but sometimes we can’t change the minds of white men.” Tom Robinson was innocent and most people know it. Mayella Ewell was obviously coached to lie- she stopped answering questions at one point. Mr. Bob Ewell was a low man who no doubt abused his children. It was obvious that Mr. Ewell beat his daughter, not Tom Robinson.
In this state which described as a doctor on stand within the trial declared Carl Lee as insane. This doctor was not found credible due to his own past events and actions but it does not discredit his doctor’s degree or his diagnosis. Carl Lee did murder two men but as he did this, he did not let the men suffer. He killed them quickly and painlessly. This in comparison to what they did to Carl Lee’s daughter, Tonya, which was torture, was in no way the same.
He believes he should of died with with his squad and doesn’t deserve to be alive. But what he doesn’t understand is its not his fault, they made the choice to die in the past, not him. He becomes a sheriff because he believes that will help his guilt about what happened while he was at war. He lives with this guilt and decides to make it his mission to save Moss and stop Chigurh. Sheriff Bell doesn’t understand why Chigurh is doing such inhumane acts and killing so many people.
If a person does not trust in God or a spiritual being, it wouldn’t be hard for someone to believe that having morals has nothing to do with believing in a higher power. There are people who do not believe in trusting in god because it is not a necessary factor in order to have morals. This disagreement will consist of a brief history of religions, moral education, and ethics. But yet again there are people who believe that trusting in God is not essentially needed in order to have morals, but all that is really needed is good ethics, also having belief in oneself and understanding to know right from wrong. As you may know there are many descriptions of what describes a religion, but there is not one that can be the most accurate some of them are: Strong belief in a godly power or powers that control human fortune.
What do you do just stand there and let them beat you up or do you fight back, so that’s what I did I fought back? I did not go to the police right away because they probly wouldn’t have listen to me and put me in jail. Ponyboy was never apart of the killing he was just powerless trying to find oxygen. I killed Bob because, he almost killed two people me and Ponyboy. But instead of two killings there was one Bob he probly killed people.
Many, if not most, Christians would argue that they believe the second statement and that morality depends entirely on God as he is omnipotent and omnibenevolant and so is the source of goodness. One reason why atheists would argue that Christians cannot follow any other statement is because if morality was grounded if something other than God, it means that atheists could do morally good actions consciously, without requiring religious faith, and could perhaps be more morally good than a Christian, making belief in or obedience to God pointless. Therefore, theists need to claim that morality can only be understood through God because what He commands is good, to set them apart from and above the rest of society in
He will be judged by those who know him in the real world, and if a higher power exists, will also be judged in the spiritual world as well. An unethical action performed by a man with a religious belief is the most unlikely event that would occur out of the four possible scenarios because he will most likely not place himself in a situation where he needs to make a decision that could potentially be considered unethical. If this situation were to occur, he could simply confess his sins and be forgiven on the spot, avoiding judgment once the confession is made in full and pity is recognized in self. “It seems that morality and religion are perceived as separate realms in order to accomplish the teleological suspension.” -The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon Let’s think about why a religious man committing an unethical deed is deemed justified in the name of God. Why does he get a special treatment because of his beliefs?
Best of all, there are those who see it as the only saving truth. Yet, even within the Christian culture it is seen in varied ways. Others confess, “Jesus is the Way”, yet, in the same breath say, “but the Bible is outdated and not necessarily intended for these times”. Others believe that they can still live how they want, and, act as if saying “I am a Christian” is some kind of pass. Moral rejections come from what a person thinks should be right within Christianity.
Some deem religious language meaningless as there is no way of verifying the language. Others see the language from a different perspective to religious believers, and this allows non believers to have an open mind about religious language. There are several different types of language related to religion; cognitive and non cognitive, synthetic and analytical, univocal and equivocal. Synthetic, non cognitive and equivocal apply to religious language as everyone has a different opinion on things and we can gain a better knowledge to say what God is not rather than saying he is everything. Religious language is meaningful because we don’t know how to falsify it.
This man's murder reminds me of the narrator's killing in "The Tell-Tale Heart". The narrator believed if he killed the old man, it would "rid myself of the eye forever". By the narrator talking to himself in the beginning of the story before the killing, you would of assumed that he was insane. On the other hand, he showed he was a little sane, because he had guilt after his gruesome murder. The narrator's nervous, jumpy, and jittery actions with the cops illustrated that he did in fact have a little remorse for what he had done.