Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of character deaths in 'The Walking Dead'”
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of character deaths in 'The Walking Dead'”
Episode 14 of season 4 of The Walking Dead describes the death of Lizzie after she murders her sister, Mika. After having survived in the dangerous post-apocalyptic world of The Walking Dead for a long time, Lizzie is still confused over what the “walkers” actually are, to the extent that she refers to them as pets, and even ends up murdering her sister in an attempt to bring her the joy of the life of her perception of a walker. Their caretakers, Carol and Tyreese, decide that Lizzie can no longer be permitted to live when she is such a threat to the people around her. Especially to the baby with them, Judith. However, killing Lizzie may have been a step too far down the wrong path. Killing people for their misunderstandings seems extreme. …show more content…
Within The Walking Dead, the prominent definition is that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Every instance of survival or safety is dominated by one or two corrupt individuals in charge, who create conflict that leads to the continued movement of the protagonist’s group. The main group is controlled by some dictator or governor in charge, who does not see justice in the same manner that the others do, leading to conflict and failures of each safe haven. As such, Plato’s condemnation of that definition of justice is proven time and time again. The advantage of the stronger ends up failing again and again, showing the true failures of that definition of justice. Even in the case of Lizzie and Mika, Carol and Tyreese are definitely the individuals with the greater strength, and make decisions based on what they believe to be correct. They lose track of Lizzie on several occasions, which serves to undermine their “just” rule, because for all their strength, they cannot seem to keep track of Lizzie's location. Their continued failures lead to Lizzie’s eventual opportunity to kill her sister, and the subsequent decisions afterwards. Even in the smaller group of just 5 people, 3 of which being children, the stronger’s failures to see what is truly right vs wrong, leads to the death of two …show more content…
For them, the internal struggle they feel coincides with the beginning of the apocalypse. They both live in a world where they can only see survival. The shadows before them serve to show only their need for survival, when there is so much more in the world to understand, learn, and experience. Survival and safety are all that matters to them, and this causes them to believe that Lizzie has become a threat to their group, so they execute her. She may have been misguided even further by another internal puppeteer, or perhaps she was a kind of philosopher who had realized the reality of the walkers. It is impossible to know what the truth is now, as Lizzie is dead, and Carol and Tyreese made no effort to understand why she believed what she did. They saw only survival and safety as they know it. Their minds were cut off from the light that could be just out of their
Lizzie said that she was in the barn during the time of the murders. She had told her Sister, Emma Borden that she was out in the backyard during the time of the murders. In the Hyman Lubinsky testimony he states “Saw a lady come out the way from the barn right to the stairs back of the house, the north side stairs” (1). Hyman Lubinsky had also said that it couldn’t have been the maid because he knew the maid well enough to know if it was her. In the Adelaide Churchill testimony she says that she asked Lizzie where she was during the murders. Lizzie answered “I went to the barn to get a piece of iron” (1). Lizzie had also said that she was on the bottom floor of the barn. She had then switched it up and said that she was on the top floor of the barn. Lizzie had said what she could see from the windows in the barn, and it changed on what she could see. Her story is always changing. There is no way to tell where she was on the day of the murders. The barn was found
Lizzie went through many trials. Lizzie was not the only one who was put on trial for the murders. Lizzie was the one who had the most trials. Every trial Lizzie went to, she was found innocent. The truth will never be known. Lizzie will be the only person to ever know the truth. Lizzie took that truth with her when she died. We can only think we know the truth, but none of us will ever really know the truth.
During the peak of their reigns of terror, they even had their peers accusing each other. This led to at least 19 deaths in the case of the Salem Witch Trials and thousands of ruined reputations, lost jobs and unwarranted jail time for McCarthy 's Red Scare. Abigail and McCarthy started their respective hunts as self-serving endeavors in order to further their own ambitions and selfish desires. Abigail was a poor, orphaned 11 year old girl who craved attention and desperately wanted to raise her status in society. McCarthy desired to make an illustrious political career
The people in Salem were ruled by the fear being killed. All the lying that occurred in Salem began the build of fear. Abigail is the main character that caused the lying. Her first lie starts in the beginning of the book after being caught dancing with other girls in the woods. Abigail herself feared the consequences she would face if the town found out about what happened in the forest. She made sure to threaten all the girls by saying “...Let either of you breathe a word, or the edge of a word, about the other things, and I will come to you in the black of some terrible night and I will bring a pointy reckoning that will shudder you…” (Miller 20). Her threat established a fear into the girls’ heads that would prevent them from their normal action of telling the truth. Following this event Abigail must save her reputation, In order to do this she lies to Reverend Hale saying “She made me do it! She made Betty do it!”(Miller 43). Abigail's accusation toward Tituba also leads to the accusation of Sarah Good and Goody Osburn. The way Abigail acted was a result of fear, if she feared nothing bad would come from telling the truth then she wouldn't have lied. The girls may have set the wi...
After breakfast Lizzie went outside to the barn to find some metal of some sort so that she could use it on her planned fishing trip that day. In the twenty minutes she spent in the barn her parents were murdered (Martins, Michael, and Binette 78).
After hearing what she said the rest of the girls started to lie just so they would not get in trouble. Abigail threatened the girls not to tell or she would make them regret it, so the girls ended up lying about what happen in the woods. Abigail said that Tituba was a witch and that ended up getting Tituba whip. Tituba lied about the devil coming to her so that the man would stop whipping her, when the girls started to say who made them do it they ended up saying the ones that they wanted
'And each makes laws to its own advantage. Democracy makes democratic laws, tyranny makes tyrannical laws, and so on with the others. And they declare what they have made - what is to their own advantage - to be just for their subjects, and they punish anyone who goes against this as lawless and unjust. This, then, is what I say justice is, the same in all cities, the advantage of the established rule. Since the established rule is surely stronger, anyone who reasons correctly will conclude that the just is the same everywhere, namely, the advantage of the stronger.'" Plato, Republic, Book 1, 338
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
In conclusion three notions of justice developed in Book I of The Republics of Plato are outlined in On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is viewed as telling the truth and paying debts, doing good to friends and harm to enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c). Thrasymachus explains how rulers are the most powerful people in the city, who make the laws, which are just therefore making the rulers the stronger. He explains that rulers make laws that will benefit themselves; whether this means they make laws that are just depends on the type of ruler. “democracy makes democratic ones, tyranny tyrannical ones…” (338 10e), he is saying that if one is democratic their laws will be fair and just but if not they will make unfair rules and therefore be unjust. Thrasymachus explains that the reason he thinks that justice is the advantage for the stronger is because the people who rule cities have more power than everyone else and therefore determine what the rules are and what is just.
Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.
The Walking Dead, a television show about surviving in the zombie world, is based on the comic book with the same name created by Robert Kirkman. In this show Rick Grimes, a sheriff's deputy, awakes from his coma and finds himself in a hospital. He soon discovers that while he was in a coma the world had become infected, turning humans into flesh-eating zombies later called Walkers by the characters. As Rick sets out to find his family he encounters many other survivors such as Glenn, Daryl, Carl, Maggie, Carol, Sasha, Hershel, Beth, and Michonne, among many others who have died along the way. Rick and the survivors have been through a lot throughout the show, such as having to move from place to place to avoid being eating by walkers. After walking a longs way, they finally find shelter in an old prison where they now live. Although The Walking Dead shows a lot violence, it sends many positive messages to the viewers that teach them about survival, religion and betray and how each of these can be beneficial in the real world
The Walking Dead is an allegory for the real world. It presents audiences, the controversies of the conventional postmodern society amidst a post-apocalyptic drama. The series portrayal of dissolving humanity in unfeigned bleakness both reflects and inflames our societal perceptions and fears. Through an inhuman fallacy, (the zombie) The Walking Dead humanises the hopeless actualization of our corrupted world in all its postmodern traits. Therefore, the ambition for The Walking Dead is to exhibit a world pursuing a favourable equilibrium of peace and liberty but never achieving it as it is entirely a Sisyphean. In this essay, I will argue how cinema and humankind has fed into corruption within postmodernism.
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In