Richard Matheson 's Button, Button," is an enlightening short story fiction of man versus self, conflict. The wealth of the family will increase substantially by pressing this button on this box. However, pressing this button will surely cause the death of another human being, someone unknown, somewhere in the world. An individual may consider pushing the button. Pushing the button can be considered murder. Matheson’s Button, Button expresses a man versus self, conflict when faced with a morality trap. This story maps the depiction of an ordinary couple transported into a concentration seemingly beyond their control. In this short story Arthur and Norma Lewis are a childless married couple that are residing in a small dwelling set …show more content…
He shows that he has developed his own code of conduct (Browne, 1973, p.2). The means that the $50k that would be received is for murder (Matheson, 2009, p.10). Arthur uses the word murder multiple times. There is no doubt in this character’s mind that pushing the button is wrong and it is murder no matter what. Matheson proves through Arthur the when one considers universal morality, not everyone would experience happiness through the use of the box. The person that dies surely would not be happy with death. No even if the person is thousands of miles away living with a disease in the Congo, or a peasant in China. However Arthur counters Norma distance by bringing the possible victims close to home with his questions of what about a baby boy in Pennsylvania or a pretty little girl around the corner (Matheson, 2009, p.10), when one considers the lives of children, most individuals understand children have just began to live and they have their whole lives ahead of them. The pushing of the button would definitely cut their lives short. Matheson gives readers that aha moment, Arthur and Norma did not know each other at all, at least not when it comes to a moral dilemma. Matheson has posted this couple on two different sides of the fence in this
A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it. Unfortunately, such acts of rampage have become a prevalent factor in the Canadian culture. As a result of endless media coverage, Canadians now are constantly bombarded with numerous images of violence. Many of which often portray a victim avenging their opponent by means of force. Thus, indoctrinating a nation of individuals to believe that it is only through aggression that problems can be resolved. Rather than being punished for acts of violence, those who commit such offenses are often praised for their “heroism”. In addition, the success of films like The Godfather, Gladiator, and Troy further aid in reinstating the fact that we live in a society that praises violence. Furthermore, this ideology allows for individuals to partake in violent acts with little or no backlash from ones community. However, when an individual strays away from the “norm”, they are likely to then be viewed as a deviant. Such cases of rejection within a society, are often seen in the portrayal of serial killers. Although our society tends to condone violence when it is directed towards a specific individual(s), it does not allow the killing of innocent bystanders. Instead, crimes that are targeted against a number of people over a long period of time, entail the harshest forms punishments under the law. Sadly, in executing the law for said crimes, those in charge often face much public scrutiny. Such occurrences were apparent in the faulty murder investigations of Canada's most notorious serial killer Robert Pickton. This is due to the ...
For example, Annette makes the comment that Benjamin was in the right to smack Henry because he was defending himself from Henry’s assault of insults to which Alan agrees with immediately. Veronica and Michaels sense of righteousness involves other people, Veronica especially believing everyone needs to uphold a standard morality. For example, the idea of bringing Benjamin over. Veronica and Michael want to make sure Benjamin understands his implications so this situation won’t happen again. Veronica worries about their children having morals while Alan and Annette don’t care much for that. When arguing about whether or not Benjamin disfigured Henry, Alan shrugs off the fact that his son just smacked another kid in the face. He instead diminishes Benjamin’s injury saying how it’ll go away and he’ll chip in on the costs of the dentist. He’s not interested in the same sense of morality that Veronica is. These contrasting views come from how Alan and Annette are able to get away with more that Veronica and Michael. For the Novaks there are consequences to their actions, while in Alan’s case with the pharmaceutical companies he gets rewarded for defending
Therefore, people forget their morals and defy their personality. Shea states people can change their morals due to the effects of power (Shea). Fromm claims that an individual’s decisions reflect his or her conscious because their conscious is what brings them “back to ourselves, to our humanity” (Fromm 126). Fromm would state that Jessup believes he could do anything because of the power he holds; therefore, Jessup allows power to rise above his conscious. This demonstrates how easily authority can corrupt an individual. Jessup knew Santiago would physically not be able to handle the “code red”, yet power overrules his morals (A Few Good Men). Fromm would admit that Jessup’s authority trumped his morals, yet also believes that Dawson and
A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it, (Lapham, 1985). Unfortunately, such acts of rampage have become a prevalent factor in the Canadian culture. As a result of endless media coverage, Canadians now are constantly bombarded with countless images of violence. Many of which often portray a victim avenging their opponent by force. Thus, indoctrinating individuals to believe that it is only through aggression that problems are resolved. Rather than being punished for acts of violence, those who commit such offenses are often praised for their “heroism”. In addition, the success of films like The Godfather, Gladiator, and Troy further aid in reinstating we live in a society that praises violence. Furthermore, this ideology allows for people to partake in violent acts with little or no backlash from ones community. However, when an person strays away from the “norm”, they are likely to then be viewed as a deviant. Such cases of rejection within a society, are often seen in the portrayal of serial killers. Although our society tends to condone violence when it is directed towards a specific individual(s), it does not allow the killing of innocent bystanders. Instead, crimes that are targeted against a number of people over a long period, entail the harshest forms punishments under the law. Sadly, in executing the law for said crimes, those in charge often face much public scrutiny. Such occurrences were apparent in the faulty murder investigations of Canada's most notorious serial killer Robert Pickton. This is due to the fact that, the negligence of the Vancou...
T.C. Boyle uses immorality as a central idea to tell the story. Jeremy tells China to end her pregnancy: ‘“You have to get rid of it…go to a clinic’, he told her” (). Here one sees that Jeremy is not a responsible person.
Even with the pain of bearing children, raising them, doing household and even farm chores, their efforts have never been truly appreciated. Mrs. Wright was “…real sweet and pretty, but kind of timid—and fluttery…” as Mrs. Hale, her neighbor, describes her (22). This would all soon change after her wedding day. With Mr. Wright’s insipid character and lack of patience of any joyous sound, Mrs. Wright’s spirit dwindled to nothing. It seems she spent hours at a time focusing on her quilts, preserves, and caring for the only life there was in the house, her canary. Even when Mr. Hale offered to get a party telephone, Mr. Wright responded, “…folks talk too much anyway…”(5). This silence he preferred also applied to his spouse. There were no hugs given out much less a smile. He failed to give her even the most minimal sing of appreciation much less the emotional warmth she hungered for.
In the story the “train switch dilemma” a single train car is rushing toward a group of five unknowing workers who cannot hear the train approaching. Another train worker, who we will call Alex is working at his summer job, he sees the train headed for the five unknowing workers. Alex notices a rail switch lever which if pulled will divert the train unto a different track, however, if Alex pulls the rail switch lever he sees that it will divert the train to a track with one lone worker surly killing the one standing alone. The rail switch lever presents the following dilemma, do nothing and the train continues on its path towards the five, or pull the rail switch lever and send the train towards the one person. In this essay I will show why Alex should not pull the rail switch lever and doing so would be morally wrong. Making a choice that results in the intentional killing of someone and ignoring his or her value would be
The ‘Trolley Car Problem’ has sparked heated debates amongst numerous philosophical and jurisprudential minds for centuries. The ‘Trolley Car’ debate challenges one’s pre-conceived conceptions about morals, ethics and the intertwined relationship between law and morality. Many jurisprudential thinkers have thoroughly engaged with this debate and have consequentially put forward various ideologies in an attempt to answer the aforementioned problem. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate why the act of saving the young, innocent girl and resultantly killing the five prisoners is morally permissible. In justifying this choice, this paper will, first, broadly delve into the doctrine of utilitarianism, and more specifically focus on a branch
and is entered by a fire escape, a structure whose name is a touch of accidental poetic truth, for all of these large buildings are always burning with the slow and implacable fires of human desperation” (3). “Human desperation” represents the problems that people face daily. These obstacles are like a “fire”, they keep getting larger. As the fire gets larger, Tom’s eagerness to leave gets stronger. The fire is a symbol of reality. Reality is full of difficulties which Tom chooses not to accept. He believes leaving will allow him to get rid of obstacles. One of his struggles is his mom’s criticisms. She always tells him what to do and gets in fights with Tom because she cannot forget about the past issues. He also feels trapped by his job. Tom works in a warehouse just for his family but does not want to live like this forever. He wants to do what his father did and be released from his restraints, but he is unable to. Each ...
Steven Box in 1983 argued that the ‘common sense hierarchy of immorality’ distorts our perception and understanding of harm. The ‘common sense hierarchy of immorality’
In Darkly Dreaming Dexter, Jeff Lindsay presents Dexter Morgan, a serial killer who kills only criminals, and in doing so, generates controversy about what constitutes morally justifiable behaviour. Lindsay’s protagonist blurs the lines between right and wrong, exposes the inherent flaws of justice systems, and ultimately forces the reader to evaluate his or her principles. While many North Americans believe that murder is unquestionably evil, I disagree on the basis that this stance overlooks the need to take into account the circumstances of the situation—such as who the victim is, who has committed the murder, and why he or she has done so—which are crucial factors in passing moral judgement on an offender’s actions. I argue that Dexter is correct to channel his sociopathy into something positive—disposing of individuals who have committed atrocious crimes in a vigilante fashion—because North American justice systems are incredibly flawed, as they allow heinous criminals to walk free too often due to prevailing social biases, systematic loopholes, and lack of manpower. Dexter compensates for this defect because, unlike justice systems, he eliminates criminals without prejudice towards the offender or the victim, operates on a straightforward basis free of political rigmarole, and achieves results in an efficient fashion, all of which make North American society a safer place, save lives of would-be victims, and spare their families mental anguish. Ultimately, this reveals that the line between what is right and wrong is not as clear as one might initially think, as well as the troubling notion that North American institutional structures are in need of reconstruction if readers are more confident in justice delivered by a ...
Élie, who is one out the nine killers reflect on his experience about victims suffering during that time period. He states, "Making someone suffer was up to each person, as long as he did his job. The Intimidators gave no particular order to encourage or discourage it. They repeated, ‘Just kill, that is the main thing. ' We didn 't care" (131). This statement demonstrates how the importance of carrying out orders being valued over moral values dictates the judgment for wrongdoings. Élie addressing how making someone suffer did not matter much as long as "he did his job" highlights those in power reconstructing moral values. Moral values represent an individual 's standard that contributes to that person 's behavior and choices. Taking that definition into consideration, allowing perpetrators to think it is acceptable to harm someone as long as directions are followed could possibly reshape that person 's moral values. Before, physically harming someone may have been understood as morally wrong. However, observing that nobody "encourage[s] or discourage[s] it" and the assigned job is complete may shift that actions like this can be considered moral. Overall, a person witnessing actions not being held accountable and physical harm being deems as acceptable can have an effect on someone feeling encouraged/motivated to engage in mass murder when the opportunity is
The mother-son case illustrates that there are more factors in play than just the two that Thomson presents in her thesis. Thomson’s conditions by themselves cannot explain every situation. The relationship between the people involved can also affect whether a decision is morally permissible or not. If that relationship entails that one person is emotionally bound and ethically responsible for the security and well-being of the other, the first cannot knowingly contribute to the death of the second. Thomson’s thesis must be modified to include this condition as well.
In conclusion, there are many factors that can affect a person’s mind on the acceptability of homicide, as well as the capability to commit homicide. Religion, culture, and socio-economic status are just a few of the factors but play a major role. They are used as either a crutch or an ideal solution, depending upon their raising. Each of these factors changes how a person can perceive themselves and what they do. Basically, a person is controlled by past experiences and cultural, religious, and socio-economic status influences. Throughout this paper, evidence supports that a person does not just go out and kill someone, something in their life has influenced them to do such an atrocious act to another person.
He presents a few hypothetical stories and one real one to get the students to think this question through. In one of the illustrations used the professor asks how many in the audience would actually push a “fat man” over a bridge onto the tracks below to stop a runaway trolley from killing five workers who were on the tracks in the way of the unstoppable trolley. I was surprised to see that a few hands actually went up. The argument of a student that had raised their hand in hypothetical agreement to pushing the man over the bridge, for the greater good, was that five other lives would be saved for the life of this one. Opposing views, of which whom I agreed with, were that by pushing the “fat man” over the bridge you were actually choosing and making a conscious decision to take a life; who are we to decide whose life is more valuable than