Chaucer saw this in people and knew that a person couldn’t be classified as good or evil because we are a mixture of both. He presented this very strongly in the way that he presented his pilgrims. He showed, for many of the pilgrims, that they had good intentions, such as the Pardoner. At the same time, he wasn’t afraid to show their evil side. The Pardoner is a prime example of his presentation of humans because he showed that he had good intentions, to help people and to pardon their sins, but he also had his evil side, which was to tell people that they have sinned simply to earn himself a few extra coins.
Bush’s approach was thoughtful in which his tone was, in a way, calm and generous yet demanding and stern. This ties into his purpose of persuasion because of the two conflicting tones. He switches from the two by asking Saddam for “full and unconditional compliance”. This will ensure “…calamity for the people of Iraq”. But he later states “anything less than full compliance… is unacceptable”.
Mister singer uses it here to suggests that no-one should sacrifice more than we can spare but donate what we can that will do the most good for the greatest number of people. What this means is that one should not cause harm to themselves while helping others. It is my opinion that Mister Singer’s ideas are fully justifiable. First it is true that we must endeavor to provide aide and end suffering: Jeffery Obler wrote that “To ignore the needy is morally wrong, and failure to help is not acceptable” (Obler, 1986).it is also logical to assume that doing the right thing has an effect not only on the one helped but also on the helper: it makes one feel good about oneself and enriches your soul, giving you something about yourself to feel pride in your
Nevertheless, this is the precisely the beauty of this anthology. The stories provide fresh and novel perspectives on common relationships found in all of the readers’ lives. Carver leaves every story slightly “up in the air”, in a way that is very thought-provoking. I found myself needing to put down the book several times and think about questions that had arisen, which was unexpected. His simplistic and to-the-point nature of writing allows the reader to focus truly on the important skeleton of the stories, avoiding wordiness and unnecessary details that are typical of some classic stories.
Had Thaddeus Stevens stood his ground despite guaranteed defeat this too would have been honorable. Honorable is an adjective to describe one’s action as being morally good. By standing his ground Thaddeus actions would have been honorable because he stood up for what he believed in; instead of caving in to satisfy someone else’s morals. Despite guaranteed defeat standing your ground is honorable because at the end of the day you stand for what you believe is right. Thaddeus Stevens had to downplay his true political beliefs in order to gain passage of the amendment.
Hardy portrays the emotions of the soldier using this dash; he shows us how a soldier may not know the true reason why he ever killed anyone, and how they must reassure themselves it was the right thing to do. Hardy also uses comparative techniques to portray emotive view of war. In the first two stanza’s he compares what would have happened if he had met the man he killed in a pup, compared to meeting him in war. “Had he and I but met, By some ancient inn” The use of conditional tense shows perhaps a bitterness in the narrators view on the actual circumstances he was in. The first stanza is very light-hearted, and happy, and the second stanza is very powerful and intimate.
The feel of the story has a mournful feel when Birch is mentioned in the novel. He is a member of Teague’s Home Guard group that is depicted in the novel as a boy with a good heart that is coming to realize the horrors of war. The boy does not want to be a part of the killing that occurs within the group, but knows he cannot leave them or else he might be look like a traitor. He feels remorse for those who are killed, and wishes he does not have to do any killing of his own. The feel of the story in the novel is really affected when Birch shoots Inman in the end and cannot believe what he has done.
Cleante’s ideological views, while enlightening, are often ignored by those who are directly in conflict with Tartuffe’s character, thus Cleante must exercise rationality at every chance he gets. Molière’s inclusion of Cleante, along with Dorine, eventually creates a foundation upon which Orgon’s family, as a whole, views Tartuffe as a hypocrite. This foundation is critical to the exposure to Tartuffe’s true nature. Cleante’s firm stance on reason can be attributed to his desire to avoid violence at all costs. Not only does Cleante assume it his duty to avoid conflict, he also attempts to persuade the other characters to view the situation from his neutral standpoint – one of which allows him to judge without bias.
Proponents view expediting death as an action of merciful compassion in that it may be the only way to relieve intolerable suffering and to allow individuals to have control of their own lives (Pretzer, 2000). Although some argue it is unethical for doctors to actively assist in ending someone’s life, some also argue that not doing so in certain situations would actually be more unethical. I feel that doctors have the obligation to do no harm to patients, but to the best of their ability at all times. The supporters of physician- assisted interpret this to mean that physicians should do anything they can to keep patients out of prolonged pain and suffering (Battin, 1998). It is the duties and responsibility of a doctor to assist a dying patient in having a comfortable, easy death, which in some cases may call for physician-assisted suicide, assuming it is the patient’s wish.
He seemed almost ambivalent to the continuation of his life but instead was concerned with the wisdom of his actions during his life. “You are wrong, sir, if you think that a man who is any good at all should take into account the risk of life or death; he should look to this only in his actions, whether what he does is right or wrong (Apology 28b).” Socrates believes that it is a disgrace to back down in the face of danger when he has done the right thing. This is especially true for Socrates because of the charges against him. He refutes all of them and shows that he does believe in the state Gods, that he does not charge a fee for teaching, and that if he pollutes the minds of young people it is of there own free will. His strongest argument is that if he did do wrong he did so unknowingly and therefore should not be punished.