How might you make an argument for its being ironic? Consider that when King wrote “Letter,” he was not the icon he is today. He was well known, certainly, but he was not universally admired and, in fact, was under FBI investigation. Thus, to read the opening paragraph with the iconic King in mind is to see clear irony in the distance between the clergy and him. Putting it in context, however, the opening paragraph might be better read as
But Capote's questioning of the relevance and righteousness of small-town values and priorities could be his own angry criticism of the world he himself inhabited: a false meritocracy in which his talents were inadequate unless accompanied by a biting, unrelenting charm. Capote depicts the hypocrisy of Smith and Hickock's trial and execution with similar precision; murder by an individual was illegitimate, but murder by the state was an accepted, even necessary means of satisfying a sense of reckoning and restoring order. Once they had fallen off the generic, automated mechanism of upward mobility toward the American dream, the barriers to re-entry were too high to scale again, and, Capote implies, not interesting to Smith and Hickock. Perry Smith is in many ways the central character of the book. He confesses to killing all four members of the Clutter family, a fact he later denies and then reiterates.
Tacitus's opinion became a crucial part of the story, as sometimes his viewpoints were stated as facts which could dupe the reader. Also, his personal connection with Agricola added to a biased opinion on him and an exaggeration of his accomplishments, which alter the facts. An example from the text that reveals Tacitus's biased feelings toward Agricola is evident through his theory that Agricola died by poison from Domitian, who had been apparently envious of Agricola's fame, although this theory was never proven. He makes up for that bias as a biographer with the way he conveyed the knowledge he attained from his closely knit relationship with Agricola. As a historian, military history and geographical knowledge were absent in Tacitus's work.
The question can be asked, is the sentencing so high because of how immoral it is or simply as punishment for taking someone’s life so your life should be punished for the duration of your existence. However, there are conflicting arguments, firstly being adultery. To commit adultery it is seen as immoral, however, adultery is not illegal. This is an example that there isn’t always a close relationship between law & morality. The second and maybe more complex issue is euthanasia.
In contrast, Source 2 simply states that “The downfall of the Cardinal is complete.” However, Source 2’s credibility can be questioned as this was a report from the ambassador to the Holy Roman Empire. The writer would have wanted to tell Charles V what he wanted to hear, and with Charles’s background hatred for Wolsey, it is very likely the source is bias, thus less reliable. On the other hand, Source 3 states that his enemies wanted him to be more fully removed from power in hope they shall not be troubled by him again. This is not strongly supported by either sources 1 and 2, yet this source has the most hindsight and less bias, thus strengthening the claim. Overall, sources 1 and 2 both support the claim, however, there is questioning of their strength when we look at their provenance.
As other novels dishonestly romanticize and glorify war, Heller does the opposite. A main theme Heller tries to convey throughout the novel is that the reality of war is absurd and corrupt, as well as the people involved in war. Although Yossarian is selfish and untrustworthy, Heller slowly shows the reader that these seemingly dislikable characteristics of Yossarian show a type of heroism. As Yossarian evolves, the reader comes to realize that Yossarian’s obsession with preserving his life doesn’t necessarily emphasize his selfishness, but rather the value he puts on life. Throughout most of the novel, the reader follows Yossarian’s quest to escape the war,
They should be distinguished by motivations because someone could have done something that is considered a crime by law but it actually helped or saved someone’s life. Another reason is because if someone planned out and executed a murder and someone got into a car accident and took a life, the person who thought it out should get dealt with more severely. Yes I feel that hate is a more heinous motivation than revenge. I feel this way because hate crimes are committed for no specific reason aside from the fact that they hate that person because of their race, gender, or religion. Revenge crimes are committed because the individual themselves may have been mistreated and have more of a reason to commit a crime.
Modern utilitarians also oppose involuntary euthanasia because of the slippery slope argument which states that if involuntary euthanasia was to be legal, the sick might fear going to their doctor or to the hospital because they will start to lack trust in the doctors as they will have the power to authorise or conduct involuntary euthanasia. This could then lead to a spread of the disease and this would run contrary to the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ principle. Mill doesn’t agree with involuntary euthanasia but his arguments can be used in support of voluntary euthanasia because his theory focused on the need for human freedom and freedom of choice. Mill gave support for the view of individuals being able to make choices for themselves in his work ‘on liberty’. He wrote: ‘over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’.
Arrogance in pride has the potential to ruin a man’s integrity, destroy his life, and even drive a settlement to insanity. Salem experiences all of the previous and more because of the arrogance of those involved in the Salem Witch Trials. Nathan Hale is one of the few men involved in the trials who had potential to prevent its tragedies from ever occurring. When Reverend Hale was summoned to Salem, he was quick to let his “extensive” dealing with witchcraft be known. Though he is more a man of God than Parris, he is not without his faults, and his faults will prove fatal.
The first argument Macbeth has against killing Duncan is not a logical argument, nevertheless a valid one. He is concerned, as even if he gets away with the assassination in this life, he is not sure of the consequences his present actions could have in the after-life. Punishment might not catch up with him so rapidly but it eventually could. Another superstitious reason Macbeth considers for not committing the crime, is that our attitudes could “Return to plague th’ inventor”, which means if we act in a violent way it will come back to us. He then starts to develop the more logical arguments for not murdering Duncan.