I believe Romeo killed Tybalt because Tybalt was the killer of his best friend Mercutio. I bet if thou were in the same situation as Romeo, thou would have revenged your beloved friend. It was all out of self defense Prince. Another reason to forget your prosecution on Romeo is because Tybalt was the one to start the fight when he drew his sword requesting
Lady Macbeth challenges him, saying that he is not a man. Macbeth becomes defensive, and to defend himself, he kills Duncan. So, in the end both are to blame. Macbeth had committed the actual murder, and Lady Macbeth made the plan and convinced her husband to commit the
Readers then realize that Lennie doesn’t understand the difference between killing an animal and murdering a human, therefore putting other lives at risk. There was an instance where Crooks was in danger himself, the result of him taunting Lennie that George might never come back for Lennie. Readers can sense the danger that Crooks was facing when “Suddenly Lennie’s eyes centered and grew quiet, and mad. He stood up and walked dangerously towards Crooks. ‘Who hurt George?’ he demanded” (Steinbeck 73).
It’s all up to the perspective of the viewer. My interpretation of Travis by the end is a combination of the two; I would call Travis a psychotic hero. Even though he did kill several men, he had a very good reason to do so; by taking matters into his own hands, he was able to restore Iris and send her back to her loving family. His plot against the senator is unjustifiable, however. There is no apparent reason as to why he would want to kill a man who had no previous entanglements or disagreements with.
This explains why Jonathan was the one to report the murder, in order to appear innocent of the crime, however it seems as though the business associates and Rita doubled crossed Jonathan by placing a knife with the initials JLS. This was probably meant as fail-safe in case the police discover their plot; Jonathan would be the one to be charged with
In the essay, “The Death Penalty: Is it Ever Justified,” an admitted killer named, Joseph Carl Shaw, in an appeal wrote: ‘Killing was wrong when I did it. Killing is wrong when you do it. I hope you have the courage and moral strength to stop the killing”’ (575). In the same essay, Edward I. Koch states, “It is a curiosity of modern life that we find ourselves being lectured on morality by cold-blooded killers” (575). If a person takes another persons’ life, how dare they plea for their own!
Tom made a good choice when Mayella was trying to trap by backing away and trying not to harm her. When Atticus announces the news of Tom’s death, he says he got killed because he was trying to escape prison. “I told him what I thought, but I couldn’t in truth say that we had more than a good chance. I guess Tom was tired of white men’s chances and preferred to take his own. Ready, Cal?” (Lee 238).
In Kantianism, it is more about intention did matter but consequence did not matter. And one of Kantianism principle is good will. And before we know it is a goodwill or not. There are some steps that will help us understand the situation more. Firstly, we frame the question, and the question will be “Should Carl shoot the two rapists?” then create the maxim, for Carl’s situation will be “When my daughter was raped then I want to see the justice be done, then I kill the men, otherwise they may just get few years in jail only.” Then, the interesting point is universalizing the maxim, so if Carl kills and everyone can kill.
Because of this, he decides he must kill Banquo, so that there will be no heir. “Macbeth plots the murder of Banquo, out of jealousy and insecurity.” (Hompi 1) This is obviously an absurd idea, and prior to Macbeth’s murder of King Duncan he never would have considered it as a solution. Shakespeare uses this to show how power corrupts even the best of people. It is obvious that this is still a problem in society today, as people start off with good intentions but slowly get sidetracked. Before long, their objectives have changed completely.
By reading what was going through his mind and the evolution of his questioning, we can understand why he killed (without having to agree, of course). The details were very descriptive of how he turned insane: “Temptation! Ah temptation has eaten into me […] I must kill!”. If the story itself was reported without the progression of his mental health in the diary, there would be a totally other opinion of him. Viewing the acts