Or, the rich have more money, they should help people who actually need it but they don’t because they are selfish, disgusting individuals who don’t care about anyone but themselves, therefore they are poor excuses of human beings. In either scenario the end result is the wealthy individual(s) being classified as less human. You can worship someone to the point when they are so far above you that there’s no way you can be equals because in your mind they are better than you. You can also be disgusted by someone to the point where their existence means nothing to you. Dehumanization works both ways in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, many saw Jay as
This is the term used when land was taken away from the nobility and given back to the king until the noble has earned it back. This benefitted the king as well as he would gain the profits from the land until the noble was given it back. Henry also used something called the Order of the Garter to praise his nobility, as opposed to throwing land and money at them. This was a title that effectively cost Henry nothing but it carried some honour with it. Some nobles (William Stanley) were unhappy with this reward as they saw it as an empty reward, they wanted land or money instead.
The Prince has elicited debate amongst generations of readers for its seemingly ruthless approach to statecraft and its abandonment of conventional morality. What Machiavelli recommends may seem, in a different political context to the stability of interstate relations today, to be shocking or immoral. However, such an interpretation fails to consider that The Prince is very much made by and for the real world. Machiavelli’s prescriptions are tailored to circumstances where society is already immoral by human nature and is blighted by disorder. Thus this essay will posit that Machiavelli is not motivated by immorality but rather pragmatism, in his advocacy of the means necessary to achieving an ‘end’ of stability and security for the collective good of the people.
Looking back it is clear there was evidence supporting & opposing the decision to close the monasteries. In many ways Henry was right to close the monasteries. Many religious houses were breaking the Benedictine rules and abusing their power & wealth. The monks were turning beggars away, leaving the monasteries, gambling, wearing finery, & the relics were broken, they also ignored the poor. On the other hand, many people question Henrys decision.
The government may choose to keep it out of the news papers but private companies and individuals have the power to save lives. Which would be the right decision in this case but they lie and kill to protect their incomes. They are greedy and this choice and be considered wrong. Morality is low. Now Acshenbach knows and he has the power to alert others of the immediate danger.
There are two main types of corruption - monetary and moral corruption. Monetary corruption is basically when people in powerful positions abuse their power for their own good and by doing so, they ignore what is right. Stealing from the people is the most simple and common type of monetary corruption. King Louis XIV of France who famously said “I’m the state” felt he could rightfully do and take whatever he wanted because France belonged to him. Moral corruption is when a person in a powerful position abuses his or her power by performing or allowing unmoral acts.
Marxists argue that religion promises us happiness, but this is an illusion hiding the truth; true happiness can only be found in a revolution. Finally, early capitalists used religion as a means of keeping their workers sober and willing to work. However, Marxism can be criticised as religion is no longer used to justify the status of powerful leaders, for example PMs and Monarchs. Also, Marxism ignores secularisation and it can be argued that religion is not a conservative force as it can cause social change. A
Always doing the right thing by others led Beowulf to his death, showing that what is believed to be a virtue will not help a kingdom to thrive, but destroys it. However, the Prince was willing to cross the lines of moral goodness in order to maintain his leadership and increase opulence of his kingdom. People are not always committed, and when they don’t believe, they must be made to believe by force. (Bondanella and Musa 258). The Prince’s authority was more effective than Beowulf, due to the nature of morality, or lack thereof, necessary to be a prosperous leader and his judgment was directly affected by the environment and size of the community.
This benefited Germany because it was a step towards the unification of Germany, whilst still enabling Bismarck to have the individual power that he wanted. However this didn’t benefit the Liberals at al because Bismarck passed the laws that he wanted, and didn’t view them as allies. One of the main factor’s behind the reason why Bismarck was unsuccessful in my opinion is Kulturkampf (K), which was a divided attack on the Catholic Church due to Bismarck’s belief that the Centre Party represented a threat to the Reich. The campaign deliberately set the Catholics against the Protestants, and alienated them from the Reich. Bismarck’s main reasoning for following Kulturkampf was to keep hold of his influence, which he felt was threatened by the Centre Party, and he felt that K would prevent any uprising.
However, Karl Marx argues that religion the opiate of the masses therefore it distracts the attention from the possibility of taking action to improve the social world by making false promises about the happy and satisfying life after death in the next world, which in turn gives the rich and powerful the ability to oppress the working class without guilt. Religion acts as an opiate to dull the pain produced by oppression but, it only masks the pain rather than treating its cause therefore offers no solution to earthly misery. This also means the working class accept that being poor is God given and therefore cannot rebel about it. (Haralambos, M and Holborn, M. 1990) According to Marx, “religion served to siphon off potentially revolutionary thoughts and actions by focusing attention