He continues to believe that one person can make a difference and those actions will change principle. However, if an individual leads and no one follows, then one must at least refuse to condone the evil and must withhold one’s vote or expedience. Thoreau claims, "If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting on another man's shoulders" (p. 969, Thoreau). By all means, noncompliance was Thoreau's preferred approach to most social injustice. All together, if one did not follow a leader’s actions for justice and passively accepted the majority vote, that individual should remove themselves from the undemonstrative submissive
In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man… But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.
He achieves in spite of a society that is designed to ensure that he fails in any attempts to better himself. Society offers him few opportunities. Its despicable, inherent discrimination works against him. Through a process of deception, he joins the valids, but he does not wish to
On the other hand its weakness is that human can affect it in other aspects besides deathless and birth less nature but in definition they do not recognize that. Prominence over human welfare and determinative nature regarding human experience –since both deal with human then they can be combined. The strength is that it when we put our lives according to the sacred we are likely to live a life free of problem associated to ungodliness. On the other hand it is important to perceive the true reality that underlies our religion .If we don’t do so we are likely to suffer and destroy what is already positive about our religion hence suffering. In that case religion will be the dividing factor instead of a bonding factor as it should
Guilt presented as corrosive and ultimately destructive of the human spirit. Proctor’s sense of shame does not permit him to initially demonstrate principle conviction like Rebecca Nurse in the face of a self anointed, morally superior authority. He declares ‘let them that never lied die now and to keep their souls’. (pg 119) Proctor wants to live, and is willing to draw on the fact of his past transgressions in order to justify recanting. He is ready to be swayed by Hale’s compelling argument that ‘life is G-d’s most precious gift, no principle, however glorious, may justify taking it” (pg
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
According to him there is no escape from the weight of means and ends (Ramsay, 33). We often hear people while faced with certain difficult situations saying that the end does not justify the means but rarely have we ever thought of what that means. In reality, this means for example that one cannot result to stealing as a way of satisfying his/her needs as this would be considered immoral and punishable by law. Whatever the end is, one is not supposed to result to immoral behavior to achieve that
We tend to dumb down the truth because we cannot accept that people are made up of both good and bad. Which seems odd because that sentiment should be something every single human being can relate to. Its evident that Lincoln had prejudices and faults, but that does not and should never demean his political genius as well as the irreplaceable role he
18) Suffering doesn’t affect innocence/ pyle one must suffer to be a human being or at least regard suffering, pyle having never gotten rid of his innocnee hasn’t blind to suffering and alternative versions of the war *** motives and political/moral and moral consequences/dangers ** pyle idealistic, wont sway from ideas of a third force fowler won’t get involved but forced to choose sides- shows difficulties during cold war, inablitity to stay uninvolved ex.
Lao Tzu & Machiavelli Lao Tzu and Machiavelli had contradicting views on what they believe being a leader is about. Lao Tzu believes there is no need for violence or being armed as expressed in Article 31. He specifically said that weapons should not be allowed except in very special circumstances. On the contrary, Machiavelli praises Philopoemon, Prince of the Acheans, for always thinking of possible war strategies, should the occasion arise. Lao Tzu and Machiavelli disagree on some other beliefs.