Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The theme of the grapes of wrath
Impact of minor characters in the grapes of wrath
The theme of the grapes of wrath
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The theme of the grapes of wrath
Steinbeck's Faulty Logic in The Grapes of Wrath
John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath chronicles the destruction and chaos of the lives of the dust bowl victims and their families. The classic novel works on two levels. On the one hand, it is the story of a family, how it reacts, and how it is unsettled by a serious problem threatening to overwhelm it. On the other hand, the story is an appeal to political leaders that when the common working-class is put upon too harshly, they will revolt. In this aspect it is a social study which argues for a utopia-like society where the powerful owners of the means of production will be replaced by a more communal and egalitarian community like the ones that spring up along the highway by the migrants seeking a higher ground. Their lives are destroyed by poverty and the dust bowl and all that matters is finding a more decent life somewhere west. Survival and getting to a new kind of life are all that matter, so much so that Ma lies next to a dead Granma all night because she is afraid the family will not get through is she seeks help "I was afraid we wouldn' get acrost,' she said. 'I tol' Granma we couldn' he'p her. The fambly had ta get acrost. I tol' her, tol' her when she was a-dyin'. We couldn' stop in the desert...The fambly hadda get acrost,' Ma said miserably" (Steinbeck 237). Throughout the novel the lure of communism lurks subtly in the background as a reminder that in desperate circumstances, pushed too far, the people will revolt.
The Grapes of Wrath depicts the degradations and abject poverty visited upon immigrants who try to survive in the face of American capitalism where the powerful land-owning companies force them into constant migration and keep them from rising above a poverty level of less than basic sustenance. The novel focuses on the sacrifices these individuals make for each other, family and friends, and the way their simple lives are inherently worthy of dignity and respect. However, in the midst of the thousands of others traveling the concrete highway barely keeping body and soul together on the road to a better promise of life in California, these immigrants form a utopia-like community. Society is recreated each evening among the migrants, where social leaders are picked, unspoken rules of privacy and generosity emerge, and lust, violence and murder breakout.
The Grapes of Wrath explicates on the Dust Bowl era as the reader follows the story of the Joads in the narrative chapters, and the migrants in expository chapters. Steinbeck creates an urgent tone by using repetition many times throughout the book. He also tries to focus readers on how the Dust Bowl threatened migrant dreams using powerful imagery. As well as that, he creates symbols to teach the upper class how the Dust Bowl crushed the people’s goals. In The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck utilizes imagery, symbolism, and repetition to demonstrate how the Dust Bowl threatened the “American Dream.”
When times get tough, many people turn away from everyone and everything. It must be part of human nature to adopt an independent attitude when faced with troubles. It is understandable because most people do not want to trouble their loved ones when they are going through problems, so it is easier to turn away than stick together. Maybe their family is going through a rough patch and they reason they would be better off on their own. This path of independence and solitude may not always be the best option for them or their family, though. Often times it is more beneficial for everyone to work through the problem together. It is not always the easiest or most desirable option, but most times it is the most efficient and it will get results in the long run. In The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck makes this point very clear through several characters. Many characters throughout
Steinbeck's relationship to the transcendentalists [Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman] was pointed out soon after The Grapes of Wrath appeared by Frederick I. Carpenter, and as the thirties fade into history, Jim Casy with his idea of the holiness of all men and the unreality of sin seems less a product of his own narrowly doctrinaire age than a latter-day wanderer from the green village of Concord to the dry plains of the West.
Conventionalism is the only view of ethical relativism that grounds morality in the group or culture. Pojman states that conventionalists focus on the morality of their own culture, and do not need to concentrate on the culture of others. For example, a young individual in the United States who was raised in a certain religion, and chooses to have premarital sex. In the eyes of their religion they are wrong for their decision, but in the open-minded attitude of the U.
...g on someone’s or some group’s rights. So if a few must suffer in order for the needs of the many it can prove very bad because of the moral obligation involving rights in this case are severe. Finally in my reason of finding this theory unattractive, is the fact that utilitarianism seems to view people as vessels of pleasure and pain rather than as people.
Rene Descartes was one of the most influential thinkers in the history of the philosophy. Born in 1596, he lived to become a great mathematician, scientist, and philosopher. In fact, he became one of the central intellectual figures of the sixteen hundreds. He is believed by some to be the father of modern philosophy, although he was hampered by living in a time when other prominent scientists, such as Galileo, were persecuted for their discoveries and beliefs. Although this probably had an impact on his desire to publish controversial material, he went on to devise works such as the Meditations on First Philosophy and the Principles of Philosophy Aside from these accomplishments, his most important and lasting mathematical work was the invention of analytic geometry. It seems that the underlying point of Descartes’s philosophy is to specify exactly what it is that we are sure we know.
The aim of utilitarianism in general is optimal happiness, which is the only intrinsic good according to Mill. More specifically, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner in which they asses what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. Often, one of the objections to utilitarianism is that it is overly demanding. However, this objection that the utilitarian view is too demanding is fitting for both forms of utilitarianism, according to the Fundamentals of Ethics. In the following, I will address why utilitarianism is habitually seen as overly demanding, and I will provide a defense of utilitarianism contrary to these objections.
According to Mill’s, utilitarianism is a consequence-based theory. Whether an action is morally right or wrong depends entirely on its consequences. In fact by taking into account the right or the wrong consequences of our actions, we do not take into account only our own interest but the interest of everybody as whole. We must not forget that Mill defines utilitarian principle as the" greatest happiness principles" which holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (mill, 7). From this definition, it becomes pretty simple to apply the utilitarian principle as an every day rule. In fact, to judge of a morality of an action, you just have to evaluate the good and bad consequences of this action. According to me, it is important at this point to understand what mill defines as good and bad. For Mill, the good is ...
This is called the "no destination" objection to time travel. This view rejects the possibility of travelling to future because future is non-existent, therefore there is nowhere to travel to. Travel to past is also rejected, as the traveler cannot possibly go back in time and change it.
The traveler must not alter a historical event that originally provided the motivation to time travel in the first place, as doing so could remove that motivation.
The possibility of time travel has not been ruled out by scientists. If the human race truly wishes to advance through science, then time travel may be revealed. Today, it may seem like hocus pocus, but in the future taking vacations through time could be as much a reality as flying in a plane. But time travel raises interesting questions; what would happen if one were to travel back in time and kill somebody?
...absent in the utilitarian standpoint. Ergo, rule- utilitarianism does not allow for an individual's freewill because it tells one to examine others rules, or beliefs and not one's own. Thereby conforming to sociality.
The Grapes of Wrath is a novel by John Steinbeck that exposes the desperate conditions under which the migratory farm families of America during the 1930's live under. The novel tells of one families migration west to California through the great economic depression of the 1930's. The Joad family had to abandon their home and their livelihoods. They had to uproot and set adrift because tractors were rapidly industrializing their farms. The bank took possession of their land because the owners could not pay off their loan. The novel shows how the Joad family deals with moving to California. How they survive the cruelty of the land owners that take advantage of them, their poverty and willingness to work.
There are two versions of utilitarianism, act and rule utilitarianism. Although they oppose each other, they are consistent with the utilitarian principle that was just explained. Act utilitarianism holds that what is believed to be morally right or wrong is based on consequence. When deciding which action results in the most good, it is dependent on whomever or whatever will benefit the most from it. Then, rule utilitarianism is dependent on moral rules. It is a more definite theory because an action can be decided as morally right or wrong dependent on the consequence of the moral rule. Those that follow this ve...
The pursuit for happiness has been a quest for man throughout the ages. In his ethics, Aristotle argues that happiness is the only thing that the rational man desires for its own sake, thus, making it good and natural. Although he lists three types of life for man, enjoyment, statesman, and contemplative, it is the philosopher whom is happiest of all due to his understanding and appreciation of reason. Aristotle’s version of happiness is not perceived to include wealth, honor, or trivial