Overall, the sources suggest that Wolsey did genuinely try to achieve justice; however they don’t conclusively state that he did this “for all”. This is shown by the sources through suggesting he aimed to override traditions or laws if meant being more just; it is also shown in the opinions and expectations that others held of him. An argument against him genuinely trying to achieve justice for all is the claim that he punished those who didn’t deserve it, however only source three gives this view and, taking into account the provenance of the source, it isn’t entirely trustworthy. Source one suggests to the largest extent that Wolsey was genuinely try to achieve justice for all, source two agrees to the second largest extent as it doesn’t necessarily suggest it is for all, source three disagrees with the other sources entirely and claims he is definitely not just. One factor that all of the sources agree on is that Wolsey went against law and tradition in the name of serving justice.
Bullshit is a double-deceit towards a person, because you are hiding the fact that you do not know the information about a topic, and you are spouting out information which you are not 100% sure of, and claiming as if you know enough to hold a conversation. Frankfurt’s statement holds water, because it is a documented argument that elegantly depicts the fight between lies or bullshit being more problematic. I agree with Frankfurt, because I myself am guilty of bullshitting my way through a few essays I have written in the past. I believe bullshit is worse than lying because you don’t think as much about the topic you are speaking about. When you lie about something, you put a lot of thought into it and decide yourself whether the truth or a lie is better for you.
Torture Jonathan Alter employs the technique of acknowledging and refuting viewpoints multiple times throughout the essay, “Time to Think About Torture”. He brings up the fact that people occasionally lie when being emotionally broken during an act of torture, but then continues to provide examples of times psychological torture has been effective enough to prevent potential terrorist attacks. The techniques he uses are used well. He knows that the topics of discussion may not be well known, so as he tries to persuade, he also informs, and this helps the reader form an opinion on what they think of the topic. The tone that Alter uses is positive, yet remains firm.
The implications of this theory are that we assume criminals are rational decision makers who will choose not to commit crime if they believe that they will be caught and severely punished for their crimes. When thinking about the “three strike and you’re out” sentencing policy there are a few reasons why not to embrace it as a positive way to stop crime. The fact that most three-time losers are aging out of [Title of Paper Goes Here( same as main title not bolded)] [The introduction of the paper goes here.] Heading for Section 1 of Your Paper (Must be bold!) [Cover the first main topic of you paper in this section.]
How to deal with prisoners is a hot issue of debate in psychological and sociological circles all around the world. Should prison life be of hardship to discipline the prisoners or should it be void of hardships to help prisoners appreciate the bright aspects of life? One viewpoint widely held is that the amount of hardship prisoners are exposed to should be consonant with crime they have perpetrated. I tend to agree with this widely established opinion because of two outstanding reasons. First of all, when criminals are treated differently based on the seriousness of the crimes they have committed they come to realize the meaning of fairness and the fact that fairness has an indispensable role in the judiciary and punitive system.
The Source does not make it clear whether More did torture those people or not, but does make him seem uncompassionate and cruel. Source N is somewhat trustworthy, due to it being more factually based, because Ackroyd would have had much more information when he wrote the Source, however, despite him clearly stating that More was a cruel man, it is unclear whether or not this is true or even trustworthy. Source O also agrees that More had little compassion for other people as it says he was not pleasant to talk to and that he was always ‘taunting and mocking’. The Source is written by someone who was around at the time of More’s
Miller makes the reader really sit and think about the idea of capital punishment. I think in some way he is like these people but more in a contradicting way. It seems he is against the criminal executions. However, his main purpose is to inform people that criminal executions should be viewable to the public and everyone should have an option, if they wants to watch. He even states “My proposal would lead us more quickly to boredom and away from our current gratifying excitement – and ultimately perhaps to a wiser use of alternating current.
Like what Xavier said in his argument, the government would wasting money on the prisoners, I believe that’s true the government is helping giving the prisoners a second chance and to be educated. Voluntary, prisoners have a choice to choose whether or not they'd want to do the job, but according to law the prison labor is recommended for these people and to help them. Though they may seem vicious and cruel it shouldn’t stop them from gaining new skills for a job industry. Employment may include baker, laundry, kitchen, wood work, retailer shops, farming, gardening, community work and cleaning. This form of labor can help with their rehabilitation.
The Disdain of Total Equality Total equality may seem fair and justifiable in the eyes of some people, but in many cases it turns out to be little more than a form of oppression, in which a group of people limit the abilities of others. Throughout the story Vonnegut speaks of this necessity for equality and the means that the government goes to achieve it by using devices called ‘handicaps’; one example of this is George’s earpiece, “A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.” Vonnegut’s simile here creates a sort of loud diction, which expresses the sheer discomfort invoked by these restraints on the person wearing them. The governing body in this society views this as the solution to a problem, one that happens to be relatively impossible to solve, this is how Vonnegut incorporates satire into his story. He is poking fun at the age old concept of ‘equality,’ one that has inspired wars and movements alike; he accomplishes this by creating a system to make everyone equal, a system that happens to be just as stupid as the idea of ‘total equality.’ Under this system equality is achieved, but it is at the cost of individual freedom and a society full of stupid people, this in-turn creates the situational irony found in the story.
The Subtle Influences of Hardin’s Article Exposed by Analyzing Singer’s Article Rhetoric has the power to manipulate people into believing that an act they would normally be against is actually not that bad. It has the ability to make people trust that cruel and inhumane actions are not as appalling as they once thought. However, it also persuades people into committing moral acts by providing a sense of guilt. Many writers use this writing tool today to convince people to agree with their stance on an issue. Garrett Hardin and Peter Singer are no exceptions.