Orwell, simply to avoid looking like a fool or what they consider to look like a fool, shoots the elephant. Maybe if the situation were to kill a person, he would have thought it through more thoroughly. Just because elephant is an animal, he didn't value the life of the elephant. Even though I think he should have made a better decision about shooting the elephant, I can see how he would have felt when thousands watched him as he stood before the elephant. Also, he wasn’t sure of what kind of reaction he would get from the people of Burma.
He went through the trial and error process of making the right decisions while still trying to maintain an image and position of authority. Orwell’s moral values are challenged in different ways, ironically enough while he too was a tormentor. He was faced with an important decision when an elephant gets loose in the village. If he shot the elephant he would be a hero to the natives. If he decides to let the elephant go free and unharmed, he would be giving in to the imperial force behind the elephant which he finds so unfair and evil.
Although Orwell brainstorms a logical plan in which he would test the elephant’s aggression prior to shooting it, he is unable to withstand the pressures of the natives who are surrounding him, wishing for the elephant to be put to wrest. While Orwell makes it evident to the reader the lack of power he feels although he is a British officer in a country controlled by Britain, he proves he will take any opportunity possible to gain a sense of power. With the eyes of thousands of natives on him, he is too intimidated to do anything other than what the crowd wants. In hopes of pleasing the demanding crowd, those who he is supposed to hold power over force him into action. By embracing his position of power, he is in turn controlled by the weak.
Roger believed that you developed conditions of worth (e.g. worthlessness and low self-esteem) due to the lack of positive regard from your parents as a child. An example of a parent setting conditions of worth on their children would be praising your child if it behaves in a way that is considered socially acceptable. 4) Explain two limitations of the Humanist approach in psychology (4 Marks) Humanistic theories are hard to falsify, they lack predictive power and are therefore unscientific – in rejecting the scientific method, Humanists theories lack imperial evidence and can be seen as bias. Another limitation of this approach is that Individual emotions and consciousness are difficult to study objectively as psychologists ask the patient how their
Nietzsche says, in his second essay, the primary objection to ascetic ideals is that ascetic priests must deny the value of this life; he portrays it as a link to the next life, rather than appreciating life as an end in itself. An objection to this claim, being unselfish, caring for the weak, loving one’s neighbor, submitting to “god,” might be better for the health of the community and may even have evolutionary benefits, even though in nature it does seem like the weak get “chosen”. As far as a moral life, they are at the same time a weak people because they have denied life for so long. In the long run the ascetic
In fact, according to Kant, a person who hates helping others but does so anyways because they see it as their societal duty is a good moral agent. On the other hand, a person who enjoys helping others because it brings them joy would be considered selfish and without any moral content. How can this make sense? Hume would argue that it is the passion to help those that are less fortunate that motivates the individual rather than the actual act. In general, the action is produced by a passion to do something, spurred on by feelings of guilt or perhaps philanthropy.
In their village, having no title (as a male) means that you aren’t worthy or powerful. Understanding that Okonkwo was very afraid of failing, even more afraid of being like his father. Meaning having no power, or being worthy. The narrator tells us that Okonkwo, “...was ruled by one passion - to hate everything his father Unoka had loved. One of those things was gentleness and another was idleness.” (Achebe pg.13).
The class lecture on Monday was focused on how we must write argumentative essays with logic or our readers will reject our point of view. We went over a list of some of the most common logical fallacies. Professor Bush said a fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.
Nowadays, our society raises us to believe that obedience is good and disobedience is bad. We are taught that we should do all what we’re told and that disobedient people are mostly accused of being bad people. Society tells us this, but it is not true. Disobedience is sometimes a necessary transitional phase and it’s not always harmful as people claim. Could disobedience be the step to a prosperous future or to the end of human civilization?
Thus, More’s Utopia is a sternly righteous and puritanical state, where only a few of us would feel happy; this is because the communal way of life and the laws of the state forbid its citizens to have absolute personal liberty, which is essentially the main ingredient of happiness. The laws of the Utopian society place really harsh and irrational restrictions on the people in terms of the fundamental choices of life. For instance, when choosing an occupation, the son must practice the same trade as his father. “But if anyone is attracted to another occupation, he is transferred by adoption into a family practicing the trade he prefers.” (Utopia p.45) Thus, a person has to give up his family and the bonds he shared with them just to pursue a profession of his own choice. However, it still does not guarantee him a free choice.