Sammy observes the patrons of A&P mundanely going about their shopping, like “sheep pushing their carts down the aisle” (6). He continues to belittle the customers by stating, “I bet you could set off dynamite in an A&P and the people would by and large keep reaching and checking oatmeal off their lists” (6), as if they are not thinking about what they are doing because they have done it so many times before. The narrator explains the dullness of the store by pointing out the “fluorescent lights” and “checkerboard green-and cream rubber-tile floor” (7). Finally, Sammy states, “The store’s pretty empty, it being a Thursday afternoon, so there was nothing much to do” (12), indicating everyone works a typical nine-to-five shift and only older, retired people are at the store on a Thursday afternoon. Sammy observes the girls breaking the normal routine practiced by other shoppers.
In John Updike’s “A&P”, the main character Sammy quits his job as a cashier for the A&P grocery store. He doesn’t quite because his job is difficult or his manager treats him negatively. He wants to improve his quality of life and not end up working his whole life there. The quality of life he sees in the girls wearing bathing suits that walked into the store was that of luxury and riches. The store he was working at was dull and monotonous, and he did not want to end up like his store manager Lengel, who was telling the girls they cant wear bathing suits to the A&P.
One customer, “the witch”, (Updike, 18) as Sammy calls her, is described as a serious looking woman one who diligently watches the register he is on, eagerly waiting for him to slip up and make an error. Not only does Sammy see the customers as leading a dead end life, he also sees this in his co-workers. His fellow clerk “Stokesie”, (Updike, 20) a twenty two year old, married father of two who’s biggest dream is to one day become the manager of the A&P grocery store. Sammy sees this as an unfulfilling dream and predicts that it will never come true. Finally Sammy defines his manager Mr. Lengel as a dreary old Sunday school teacher who seems so unsatisfied with his own life, that he makes a point to tend to everyone else’s business.
People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view. The main point favoring the cultural relativism argument is that if there are no moral principles, then the principles can only be relative to culture. If someone were to express their opinion about the morals of a culture that they didn’t agree with, including what the culture already believed to be right, then that person would lose the argument without any question. This can be easily disproved because in one culture, not every person is going to have the same moral judgments about what is right or wrong and people can establish objective moral principles. A culture also can’t think of them as having the power to decide which is right and
Huck questions why he has not turned in Jim because he wants to be what society depicts as good, but in reality, he does what he knows is right. While Huck is on the raft alone, he begins to question why he helps Jim escape while Miss Watson has done nothing wrong to him. Huck feels terrible but he cannot bring himself to pray that he can do the right thing. “I was trying to make my mouth say the right thing and the clean thing, and go and write to that nigger’s owner and tell where he was; but deep down in me I knowed it was a lie-and He knowed it. You can’t pray a lie-I found that out” (Twain 227).
Immaturity immediately kicks in as he refers to her as "a witch about fifty." The reader is able to tell that Sammy is unhappy at his job and does not care for the customers. He makes references to them as “The sheep pushing their carts down the aisle” (Updike 261) and “A few house slaves in pin curlers” (Updike 261). As the girls make their way to the register, with only a single jar of herring snacks, Sammy’s judgment kicks in again.
It is an irrefutable fact that we should help each. However sometimes help to others poses some danger to either us or others. Thus Peter Singer’s argument that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” in my view is a better school of thought or a sound moral law. We shall find out how he arrives at this conclusion and how convincing he is. Singer begins his argument by outlining some very important facts about human beings.
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
No one wants to be seen as weak or a failure and be taken advantage of, that’s why people have their guards up. Things Fall Apart tells a story of a stubborn man (Okonkwo) responding to change. In Chinua Achebe’s book Things Fall Apart, he reveals Okonkwo’s fear of failure and of weakness. Okonkwo, with a deep insecurity of being like his father, known to be a poor, unsuccessful man and a failure in his society, gives his best to be successful and nothing else. Okonkwo passionately works hard to be at the top as a respected man (which he achieves) and the complete opposite of his disappointing father.
For him knowing and understanding one’s self and one’s duty was very important. He believed that “if we do either more or less than is required of us we can be held accountable for the consequences, but not otherwise - not if we do only what is required, neither more nor less. If all the good that we do is just what is required and no more, the consequences of our actions cannot be adjudged to our credit” (Kant, 59). In this quote from Kant, he basically tells us that if we only do what are duties requires us to do, then that is the only thing that we can be held responsible for. However, the most important duty for Kant was the duty to one’s self.