Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Relationships in wuthering heights
Relationships in wuthering heights
Traits of relationships in wuthering heights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Relationships in wuthering heights
When someone brings up the concept of deserving, what do you think of? Do you think of when you were little and your parents punished you and said you deserved that? Or do you think of when you had won a prize and someone told you that you had deserved it? Well, all around the expression to deserve ones fate means to do something or have or show qualities worthy of fate, in this case. For example in the story “Interlopers” the two men have a fate that concludes the story, whether or not they deserve it is a negotiable subject. As a reader, one could decide that they did deserve their fate of which they both die the same way, wolves. In “The Interlopers” the two men, Ulrich and Georg deserve their fate at the end of the story because; they were originally there hunting each other, they bickered quite a bit after the tree had fallen and showed their hate, once one had realized that there was about a fifty/fifty chance for life they decided to make an effort to be friends again.
To start, the two men in the story of “The Interlopers” deserved their fate because they were originally out hunting for one another. The story says that Ulrich had said, “I’m caught in my own forest land,” Therefore, Georg was hunting for him in Ulrich’s forest. If you step back and look at the details, you see that Georg wasn’t the brightest coming into his forest to kill. Much less even going to kill. Then again, the two households has a very large feud between them for what seemed like a long time. Considering that it was very strong and appeared to be carried over from past generations. Again, being in your enemy’s forest is all around an idiotic move. Knowing that they have as much back up needed on hand right there. So if they hear a gunshot, there...
... middle of paper ...
...rst, then the other would have most likely died even with the vow to be friends again. Therefore, the ending of the wolves finding them made it equal, so they did deserve their fate.
In conclusion in “The Interlopers” the two men, Ulrich and Georg deserve their fate at the end of the story because; they were originally there hunting each other, they bickered quite a bit after the tree had fallen and showed their hate, once one had realized that there was about a fifty/fifty chance for life they decided to make an effort to be friends again. First, the men had originally came to hunt one another and ended up both dying, it’s only fair. Also they had been very hateful and rude to each other and then had the audacity to be friend again. This is something that is wrong, they are only worried about their safety. Obviously, the men deserved their fate of wolves dinner.
“The wolf did with the lambkin dwell in peace. His grim carnivorous nature there did cease. The leopard with the harmless kid laid down. And not one savage beast was seen to frown.
Many of the soldiers that comprised Reserve Police Battalion 101 were of random choosing; they were not picked due to their anti-Semitic sentiments nor for their prowess in previous battles. Browning argues that these ordinary men were not forced to become killers rather they had the option to speak out against these horrific actions and accept the consequences of that or to conform to the orders even if it was a violation of their moral standards. Browning argued that any man had the potential to become a killer if their values were at all compromised, if they were susceptible to peer pressure, if they did not want to seem cowardly in front of their comrades, or if they had a dislike towards Poles, Jews or Soviets which may have been instilled by Nazi propaganda or its ideological training. Through Browning’s research he found out that of the approximately 500 German soldiers that composed Reserve Police Battalion 101, only about ten to twenty percent (50 to 100 soldiers) of men totally abstained from killing altogether, which means at
The arguments of Christopher Browning and Daniel John Goldhagen contrast greatly based on the underlining meaning of the Holocaust to ordinary Germans. Why did ordinary citizens participate in the process of mass murder? Christopher Browning examines the history of a battalion of the Order Police who participated in mass shootings and deportations. He debunks the idea that these ordinary men were simply coerced to kill but stops short of Goldhagen's simplistic thesis. Browning uncovers the fact that Major Trapp offered at one time to excuse anyone from the task of killing who was "not up to it." Despite this offer, most of the men chose to kill anyway. Browning's traces how these murderers gradually became less "squeamish" about the killing process and delves into explanations of how and why people could behave in such a manner.
of the wolves and finds that they are more than the savage and merciless hunters
The system of justice that Nietzsche employs although somewhat cynical has a substantial amount of merit as a form of justice, which is present in our society. This is demonstrated through the depiction of the creditor/debtor relationship that exists in our democratic societies, and the equalization process that occurs, and furthermore that Nietzsche is correct to assess justice as such a principle. The issue is most obvious in the penal system; however it is also prevalent in personal day-to-day relationships as well as political structures.
A majority of these men were neither Nazi party members nor members of the S.S. They were also from Hamburg, which was a town that was one of the least occupied Nazi areas of Germany and, thus, were not as exposed to the Nazi regime. These men were not self-selected to be part of the police order, nor were they specially selected because of violent characteristics. These men were plucked from their normal lives, put into squads, and given the mission to kill Jews because they were the only people available for the task. “Even in the face of death, the Jewish mothers did not separate from their children.
...cting unjustly. Therefore, justice is determined to be intrinsically valuable from the negative intrinsic value of injustice that was demonstrated, as well as from parts of the soul working together correctly. Glaucon also wants Plato to show that a just life is better than an unjust life. It has been shown that when the soul is in harmony, it only acts justly. It is in a person’s best interests to have a healthy soul, which is a just soul, so that the person can be truly happy. This means that by showing justice has an intrinsic value, it can also be concluded that it is better to live a just life opposed to an unjust life. The conclusion that I have drawn is that Plato’s argument against the intrinsic value of injustice is sufficient to prove that the just life is superior, even if the unjust life may be more profitable.
The truth is the battle is about far more than wolves; it is about a lack of discussion and understanding between two entities, both with strong convictions about what is right - for themselves, their families, their communities, and for the wolves. Considering the battle fought over one Wolf and Coyote Derby, that conversation is nowhere near happening.
...een the werewolf and the wolfman. Both are murderous beasts, but the motives behind their actions are different. Werewolves attack to maim, kill, and gain strength. They also attack for the joy of being splashed with blood. Wolfmen, on the other hand, are more benign, still attacking when provoked, but not stalking and planning kills, they can be subdued by music and love. This writer concludes that, given the choice, Reverend Lowe and Sir John would choose to be a werewolf if given the option, they enjoy the killing and the power. Conversely, Lawerence would freely choose to live without the curse of changing into the wolfman because he did not choose this life. A werewolf will always choose death and a wolfman will always choose life.
...ferent from their peers has isolated Bernard, Helmholtz, and John, it has also deepened their individuality. This scenario, at a lesser level, often plays out in modern day. People possess a natural desire to fit in and often are willing to forego individuality in order to do so. Though one may gain a facade of happiness as a result of fitting in, being truthful to oneself and expressing one’s free will allows for honest expression of individuality, a concept much greater than such a facade. A society without unique individuals is a society without humanity, and, as demonstrated through these characters’ experience, does not function. Ultimately, people must realize that individuality, knowledge, and raw emotion is more important to society than superficial happiness.
Two human relationships were deeply significant to the Germanic society. The most important, the relationship between the warrior and his lord was based on a common trust and respect. The warrior vows loyalty to his lord and serves and defends him and in turn the lord takes care of the warrior and rewards him lavishly for his valour. The second human relationship was between kinsmen. As Baker and Ogilvy suggest, a special form of loyalty was involved in the blood feud. (P.107) If one of his kinsmen had been slain, a man had an ethical obligation either to kill the slayer or to exact the payment of wergild in compensation. The price was determined upon the rank or social status of the victim...
For the characters in Angela Carter's “The Company of Wolves,” danger lurks in the the grey areas, the ambiguous spaces between opposites. The plethora of socially constructed binaries—male and female, passive and active, innocence and maturity, civilization and wilderness, man and wolf—have the ability to be harmful and restrictive, but perhaps more worryingly, they create an ill-defined middle ground between where the rules are vague and fluid, which allows for dishonesty and deception, and Carter foregrounds the resultant proliferation of untruths as the real peril. One vehicle for clear and honest communication, however, is the narrator's changing characterization of the
... each other. Second they know they would have tried to break the two up, which would have made them want to kill themselves, because they two constantly talked about dying for their love. Lastly the hatred between both families would have driven them apart because they would have gotten forbidden to see each other. As soon as the
In correlating the scores from the Self-Assessment Exercise located on pages 58-59 of our text book I have discovered that the fairness for which I score my place of work, and the organization for which I work, the highest is in fact Interpersonal Justice; for which my combines score totaled 13 out of a possible 15. This places Interpersonal justice at a very high overall level of perceived justice for me. And I can think of many reason ranging from the broad to the personal, and from the historic to the current, which all could be contributors to my having this perception.
Two men, Henry and Bill go sledding with six dogs. Each night they camp in the merciless wilderness, a dog is killed by a wolf pack. The wolves come closer to camp every night, until there are three dogs left. One of the wolves is different and bigger then the rest, a she-wolf, who’s use to people and afraid of guns. One day the men’s sled overturned and got caught up in trees. They had to untie the dogs to fix things. One of the dogs saw the she-wolf and took off after her, only to be ambushed by a dozen wolves. The dog ran for his life, while Bill went with his gun to save him. Bill and the dog both became a meal to the wolves. A couple of nights later, so did the rest of the dogs. The only thing that saved Henry was sheltering in the middle of a fire he’d made. By the time the fire had died, other men came with sled dogs to his rescue.