When people do things for the right reason, others may think less of the people working toward good causes. People making important decisions should not care what others think as long as the right decision is made for the right reasons. Dr. King did what he thought was right for equality, which in the end cost him his life. He didn’t care that many white people disliked him for his outspoken beliefs. This quality clearly distinguished him as a great person and leader because he was willing to put his life on the line to get his dream to become a
In the perfect society, Plato believes that it is necessary for rulers to occasionally refrain from telling the whole truth. He explains why it is in the best interest of the governing class to lie to its working classes in order to maintain the structure of power. First, he discusses his reasoning behind The Guardian class. His system of rulers is based on individual ability, unlike most ruling systems where the people in charge become so based off of family history and financial status (in The Republic, Guardians are not specifically wealthy or poor, as he believes either circumstance would render them unable to accomplish their work). Plato's society is one built around excellence and formed under an aristocratic class that thrives off of the necessity to be as first-rate as possible.
Sophists were skilled in elaborate argumentation; were they would try and make the argument they were focusing on the stronger side, even if it was wrong or weaker. This often made them seem devious as they were working only for the benefit of themselves and their students, who were aiming to become high profile speakers or politicians. Socrates was unlike this in that his main focus was not on argumentation or speaking, he rather focused on questioning virtues to understand morals and ethics. He believed that all opinions were valid which also opposed the views of the Sophists who assumed that the wisest of people were genuinely correct and only they had the ability to teach. The main goal of socrates was unlike that of the sophists.
Weatherford’s portrayal of Genghis Khan is “a progressive leader whose primary mission was to bring peace, not war, throughout his empire”. Though Weatherford’s perspective on Genghis Khan may be a little over the top with romanticism, he is not too far off what I have come to believe about him. The many accomplishments of Genghis Khan heavily outnumber all else that he did. Like Emperor Qin Shi Huang of the Qin Dynasty, Genghis Khan probably had more of an intention of uniting rather than destroying. If he had an intention of just causing havoc and war, then he would not have ended up encouraging trade and enlightening himself and those around him of foreign cultures.
Was Cool Hand Luke Honest? One of the most famous quotes from the movie, “Cool Hand Luke” was, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” I feel that there really was not a failure to communicate, but a failure to conform. Luke’s unbreakable spirit kept him from being the tamed animal the institution wanted him to be. It is because of the spirit he had that I think that he was an honest man. Honesty can be defined in a lot of ways.
If it were not for the protection of patents, big companies, with their robust capacity, would surpass the small business entrepreneurs in speed and cost of production and thereafter suppress them completely. However, the excludability that patents impose on non owners of the inventions does not see capacity. This helps small business entrepreneurs to practice their own inventions while big companies remain hands-tied. ii) Revenue from licenses, sale or infringement. Licensing ones technology to others is another good way of making money.
The extraordinary people on the other hand, like himself, are superior humans who have the right to break the law under certain circumstances in order to benefit humanity: The only difference is that I don't contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it. In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. I simply hinted that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right…that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep…certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfillment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). (260) He also believes that an extraordinary man has the right to commit murder if the act will result in benefits to the less fortunate. The idea of a superior man came into the mind of Raskolnikov when making a living was impossible without violating the law.
Taking into account the sensuous nature of human beings, Kant states that it is very difficult for a man to be righteous without hope. Immortality guarantees this hope and ensures that there is a place sufficient for the reckoning of happiness in proportion to worthiness to be happy. The postulate of freedom is given a special position among the other two postulates. Freedom is an apriori that we do not understand but we know it as the condition of the moral law which we do know. It is because of freedom that God and Immortality gain objective reality and legitimacy and subjective necessity.
The issues confronting Churchill could not have been more critical yet he demonstrated incredible courage and integrity both in his action and his words. He was always prepared to stand up for what he believed in, refusing to compromise over issues he knew to be right. He recognized that facing up to reality often meant confronting mistakes and he tried to prepare his people and his troops for this. He believed that every decision can teach something, that the fear of failure only inhibits progress and that the only kind of failure that deserves to be punished is inaction. Churchill was prepared to learn from mistakes and was not afraid to admit when he was wrong.
He says, that as a consequence of the way he was raised he is "inclined to reserve all judgments" about other people (page 5). His saying this makes it seem like we can trust him to give a fair unbiased account of the story that he is telling, but we later learn that he does not reserve all judgments. Nick further makes us feel that he is a non-partisan narrator by the way he tells of his past. We come to see that Nick is very partial in his way of telling the story. This is shown when he admits early in the story that he does not judge Gatsby because Gatsby had an "extraordinary gift for hope, a romantic readiness".