Main Kinds of Chemical Reactions

Comparison Of EteoclesAntigone And Creon - 755 Words

Antigone and Creon are two characters that may be considered too similar in personalities, which causes some commotion. Both are confident and persistent in their beliefs and will do what they believe is best in their mind. Antigone is guilty in the eyes of the law because she buried her brother, Polynices, a traitor to Thebes, against Creon’s ruling. Creon has banned Polynices’ burial because he fought for power against Thebes and his own brother, Eteocles, who also died in the battle. Eteocles was granted a proper burial for dying in the name of Thebes, but Polynices was not. Antigone is worried about his burial rights because it is her job as a woman in the family to make sure that her brother is buried so he can get to the afterlife†¦show more content†¦Family is portrayed as the most important thing to Antigone, other than her religious beliefs. She is willing to risk her life to guarantee her brother an eternity, all because it is her duty that her other sister was not brave enough to complete. She shows selflessness and an attitude that she would die for her family no matter the circumstance. Creon was so worried of his reputation around his kingdom that he pushed away his family in a time of need. He doesn’t think of what the gods may say, he thinks of what his new city will think of him if he takes back his ruling that he was very clear and precise of. Antigone even tells Creon â€Å"nor did I think your edict has such force that you, a mere mortal, could override the gods† (lines 504-505) because she believes that he is forgetting that his power on earth will not compare to the power the gods have over him. Creon may believe that he is better than the gods because he has that power feeling of dominance and he wants to be in control. A positive trait that comes out of Creon’s case is that he remained loyal to his city while Antigone would be considered a traitor, or a modern-day criminal. Creon did not get fl akey when he realized the person behind the crime was his niece and future daughter in law, he remained strong for his reasoning’s and banished her to be executed, which caused more

Hedonism Essay Research Paper There is no free essay sample

Hedonism Essay, Research Paper There is no uncertainty that pleasance is good. Whether the pleasance is emotional or physical ; whether we get this pleasance through gustatory sensation, touch, sight, aroma, or hearing ; it makes no difference. Pleasure is ever gratifying. In fact the words pleasance and good are frequently times interchangeable. After seeing a film I liked, I may state person that the movie was enjoyable or that it was good. Both descriptions have a positive intension. But while pleasance is doubtless good, it is non the highest good and surely non the merely good, as the Hedonist would state. First, we must look at illustrations throughout the universe which will turn out that pleasance is non the highest good. One illustration would be a sadistic kid molester who gets pleasure out of ravishing immature kids. Harmonizing to the Hedonist this sickening act would be good because the molester is acquiring pleasance out of it. Of class they would reason that this is non the pleasance they speak of because it will turn out to be bad for the molester in the long tally. He will be sent to gaol and be ostracized from society, doing him much more hurting than pleasance. Therefore this would non be an illustration of Hedonic pleasance. But the Hedonist is doing a really unsafe premise: the molester will ever acquire caught and ever be punished. Unfortunately, this is non ever the instance. Many people get off with their offenses everyday without experiencing the wrath of justness. So if a molester gets pleasure out of small kids, is it good? If a Hedonist were to reply yes, so it does non look like a sound philosophical point of view. For another illustration, we can turn to the Holocaust. Over six million Jews and infinite others were killed at the custodies of the Nazis. While many of the Nazis were disgusted by the violent deaths ( Oscar Schindler was one ) an even greater sum got pleasance out of it. They thought that they were making the universe a good by fring it of the inferior human elements. It was this thought that led to 1000000s of barbarous deceases. Yet really few Nazi? s were of all time prosecuted. Many fled to other states and continued their lives without of all time taking duty for the flagitious offenses they committed. In fact, many still felt inwardly proud of the responsibility they had done for the Aryan race. So harmonizing to the Hedonist the Nazis were making nil incorrect every bit long as they were acquiring pleasance. Once once more this is a difficult construct to accept as true. A Hedonist will state to look closely at our society and lives and we will see that we live harmonizing to pleasance. Everyone wants to be happy and felicity is straight correlated with pleasance. But, in fact, our society is non run on the footing that pleasance is the highest good. If it were, our whole justness system would neglect. In tribunal, a liquidator? s defence would be? I got pleasance out of the killings. ? As a Hedonist, the justice would so hold to put the condemnable free. Our fundamental law is founded on the thought that every individual has the right to life, autonomy, and the chase of felicity, but non pleasance. Our establishing male parents knew that if our society was based entirely on pleasance so people would be making whatever they wanted to make whenever they wanted to make it. A Hedonic society would be helter-skelter and lawless ; it merely would non work. Now that I ha ve shown that pleasance is non the highest good, it will be easy to turn out that it is non the merely good. One illustration would be Mahatma Gandhi, the freedom combatant who used non-violent opposition to liberate India from British regulation. Ghandi went through great sums of physical hurting to acquire his message across. He went on hungriness work stoppages for hebdomads at a clip, wholly hungering himself. Ghandi was seting up with great personal forfeit for the good of his people. This puts a large hole in the Hedonistic logical thinking. Ghandi did a great good for all of humanity. He freed a state of people without any bloodshed and left a bequest of non-violent opposition for coevalss to come. He did this all through great forfeit to him and his household. There was no pleasance involved. Yet what Ghandi did was clearly good. So he did a good without pleasance. Another illustration along the same lines goes back to the Holocaust. Oscar Schindler, the affluent mill proprietor, paid for Jews to work at his mill so they wouldn? t run into their about certain decease in the concentration cantonments. Schindler saved the lives of 100s of Jews. But at the same clip he lost all his money, his concern, and even his dignity. At the terminal of the film, when the Germans were defeated and Jews were liberated, Schindler was a broken adult male. He felt he should hold and could hold done more to forestall the tragic loss of lives, even if it was merely one more individual he could hold saved. Schindler got non pleasure out of salvaging the lives of the Jews, yet he is still honored as an model homo being. He was compassionate and acted altruistically. This illustration shows how we value things other than pleasance. We value compassion and self-less workss that benefit society as a whole, non merely a individual individual. The Hedonist must be incorre ct in stating that pleasance is the lone value, because it is obvious that there are other things we value. One of these other things we value is freedom. Patrick Henry was made celebrated in American history for his anti-Hedonistic, radical statement, ? Give me liberty, or give me decease! ? He would instead decease than to be suppressed under unfair authorities. The laminitis of non-violent opposition, Henry Thoreau, gave great logical thinking to this thought in his celebrated essay? Civil Disobedience. ? Thoreau realized that there are things more of import than pleasance. He knew of the duties that come along with freedom, among these, the responsibility to protect that freedom at whatever the cost. He said it is necessary to do selflessnesss to derive and keep our freedom. Every civil rights leader is cognizant of this fact. Martin Luther King knew that he was at a great hazard for being assassinated, yet he was willing to do this forfeit so that inkinesss in America would be free. These are merely a few illustration throughout American history where people have valued freedom over p leasance ; in fact, freedom over life itself. Therefore a Hedonist is incorrect when he states pleasance is the lone value. There are infinite other illustrations in mundane life where we see things other than pleasance valued. Love, cognition, and leading are all of import whether or non they lead to pleasure. So while it is true that pleasance is good, it is non ever good, nor is it the highest good, and decidedly non the merely good. Hedonism is incorrect. 317