Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Moral dilemmas
Moral dilemmas
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Moral dilemmas
The story, Lather and Nothing Else, takes place in the late 1800s during a revolution. A man named Captain Torres, who was a known for killing hundreds of people mercilessly, walked into a barber shop. The barber working there immediately recognizes him. Torres was an enemy of his in the revolution. Torres was responsible for the death of many people and will harm many more. Torres asked the barber for a shave and the barber was now faced with a moral dilemma. Whether he would slit his throat and kill him or just do his job by giving him a shave and treating him like any ordinary customer. The barber thought about different ways he could respond to the dilemma he faced. One was eliminating the problem (killing Captain Torres), or, avoiding the …show more content…
problem and letting Torres walk away unharmed. He has an internal conflict on which response to choose and whether he is making the right and moral choice. If he decides to respond to the dilemma by eliminating the problem, which is Torres, by killing him he could help stop the violence and harm towards others because Torres could no long kill people. Or, by killing Torres he could start an uprising and even more violence could take place.
The barber didn’t know how people would respond to eliminating Torres either. He tried to figure out how he would be thought of if he killed the Captain. He says to himself, “The murderer of Captain Torres. He slit his throat by shaving him, what a cowardly thing to do! And others would say The avengers of our people. A name to remember!”. In order to face this moral dilemma, the barber uses the thoughts of other people's reactions to help him decide which is the moral thing to do. If the barber eliminates Captain Torres, he would be killing a murderer, but then he would become a murder himself! He would be just as bad as Torres if he killed an unarmed man. The other way he could respond which is by avoiding the problem in all and letting Torres leave unharmed, could be both negative and positive which makes the decision an even harder one. If he leaves Torres alone, then Torres would go out and kill many more people. But, the barber would not become a murderer himself and he would not have to flee into hiding. The barber thinks the best option is by avoiding the problem because he can not get passed the fact that he would be a
murderer. The barber ends up making the decision by saying to himself, “I don’t want to be a murderer. No sir. You came in to be shaved. And I do my work honorably. I don’t want to stain my hands with blood. Just lather and nothing else”. The barber decided to do what he believed to be the moral thing to do and avoid the problem by just giving Captain Torres a shave and letting him go. He could not get passed the fact the he was murdering someone. What made this decision so hard for the barber was that by eliminating or avoiding the problem, people would still be harmed. He chose what he believed to be the right and moral thing for anyone in his position to do.
The plot of the story, “Ride the Dark Horse”, was very interesting. In the beginning, the character didn’t think that he should do anything so that he wouldn’t have to “face facts”. However, one day he went on a fishing trip with his father. On the trip he met a boy, Jean Paul, whose father offered him a job picking up logs from a river. As they were collecting the wood, Jean Paul decided to go fishing. Jean Paul then cast his line when it accidentally got caught in a tree. The lure hooked onto his face and sliced at his chest, hurting him severely. The other boy then pulled Jean Paul into his canoe and paddled them all the way to the doctor, despite the boy’s original intention to avoid doing anything. A thought-provoking storyline transpired throughout the text.
Thomson goes on to present several scenarios that show how negative and positive duties cannot be the final assessment as to the morally of an action. In one such scenario Thomson hypothesizes that the five people on the track are workers who have full knowledge of the dangers their job presents and are paid hazard pay as compensation. In this scenario the second track has been out of service for years and the one person one the tracks was invited and had their safety guaranteed by the Mayor who just so happened to be the trolley conductor. In this situation it is clear that negative and positive duties hold no bearing, the conductor is obligated by his own word to kill the five. In addition, the five workers have no special claim over the one person against being killed because they are fully aware of the possibly that they can die at
The main character and protagonist in this story is a boy named Colonel Sartoris. In this story, Sarty is faced with the decision of either going along with the views and actions of his morally challenged father or asserting his own morality and individuality by running away and leaving his family and his pain behind.
The brothel boy is the main suspect when a local 12 year old girl is raped. The victim is found naked with a head wound being held by the brothel boy after a group of farmers hear a scream coming from the river. Since he was the only one there the villagers assumed he was the perpetrator. So they formed a mob and tried to get people’s justice by almost beating him to death. This small village is located in Burma before modern times. Many believe that the brothel boy committed this assault because he has worked in the brothel all his life, seeing the acts, and is very undereducated. The villagers are calling that the brothel boy be hanged for his crime because they fear he could do it again if he gets out. The brothel boy’s punishment all comes
In both stories both character’s bases on moral and ethical decisions. The choices which one makes can result in such a huge outcome of either right or wrong. The stories similarity of the soldier and the barber is by their loyalty, this because they both thought about the consequences of killing somebody and the outcomes. Withal, they both think about themselves before somebody else, because the soldier knew if he does not kill Gregory he will be in danger. Whereas, the barber knows that if he killed Torres he would be killed by the revolutionaries. People have both moral and ethics, which they have to conclude knowing which outcome, is better for them or the situation that they are placed in. The results of right or wrong can ultimately disappear knowing that the choices of that individual can appear and lead them to a reasonable moral or ethical choice.
He is tempted by the opportunity to kill the Captain as, he feels it is part of his duty to protect his fellow revolutionaries. However, his personal or positive power is more important to him than the feeling of duty that he has. He is tempted to use his power to kill the captain, but then thinks to himself, “I am a revolutionary but not a murder” and “No one deserves the sacrifice others make in becoming assassins.” Unlike the captain, he does not want to hand over his personal power; he does not want to stain his “hands with blood”. He knows that he has the option to kill the captain, but is unwilling to pay the personal consequences to this
In the may of 1771 a girl sent a letter to the Boston Gazette telling of a woman with the coiffure. The girl had been walking down the streets when a woman driving her carriage had been thrown from her seat. The woman was alright, but the hair piece was completely torn from her head. Inside of the complicated hair piece was tallow and horse hair, to keep the good locking hair on the outside stiff.
Tell them not to kill me!, by Juan Rulfo, is an interesting work of fiction that addresses mainly selfishness and the realities of a self-centered life, and empathy. (Transition, have to text friend.) Many scenes in this short story portray this theme of selfishness, but few show it better than the very first scene in which Juan Rulfo describes the protagonist, Juvencio, begging his son, Justino, to put himself in harm's way to save his own life, with no thoughts of the safety of his son or his son's family. There are also quite a few scenes in this story that portray the theme of empathy. One of the scenes that shows this best is when Juvencio thinks about the crime he committed, and shows how much of a lack of empathy he feels for any human life other than his own. Another scene that shows this well is the scene in which Juvencio talks about his crime with such lack of empathy for any other people and only trying to justify it shows a total lack of caring for any other human life but his own. Another scene that shows Juan Rulfo’s theme of empathy is the scene in which Don Lupe’s son orders that Juvencio be killed. Tell them not to kill me! is about selfishness and the realities of living a self-centered life, and empathy.
...s can arise, but choices made with some understanding of the alternatives will usually work out better than leaving matters to chance. Also, if choices are made with the welfare of others in mind they are more likely to be the right ones. In particular, if there is a problem to solve that involves conflict between the law and conscience, the best solution may be to follow one's heart. If a decision is guided by conscience, no one can better tell one what to do, or how to do it. That is how Taylor is able to take her loved ones out of Arizona, even though it means breaking the law. She feels she can not do otherwise, and the law has to take second place. Someone else might not do the same. Everything depends on both conscience and courage, but not everyone has these qualities in the same degree. Nonetheless, if even breaking the law must sometimes be considered, it can best be done by an appeal to common humanity, conscience, and the heart. That is exactly what Taylor does here. But, like Taylor, people must be prepared to live with the possible consequences of their choices and actions. Knowing clearly, however, why one's choices are made, makes such risks or obstacles acceptable.
Don’t touch my hair: this should be a sentiment simple enough to understand. However, for many black women this establishment of boundaries can be broken repeatedly and without any regard for personal space. Solange Knowles’ song “Don’t Touch My Hair” and accompanying music video takes this declaration of self and creates an anthem for the empowerment of black women and dismissal of microagressions, white beauty standards, jealousy and appropriation. Her lyrics emphasize the emotional connection that black women have to their hair. But, beyond this pride is an act of self-love militant and radical against white standards of beauty; or is this self-love subscribing to the notion that black women’s hair is an object detached from their personhood- objectifying themselves to other’s gazes and not subverting them? In order to answer this question, theories from Helen
“The Shampoo” by Elizabeth Bishop was written near the beginning of Bishop’s residence in Brazil and is a direct homage to her lover Lota. Even though Lota is not directly addressed in the poem, an earlier draft of the poem reveals a connection to her longtime lover. Bishop uses the mundane act of washing a loved one’s hair as the basis for a brilliant meditation on the nature and progression of time. In “The Shampoo” Elizabeth Bishop uses imagery of nature, metaphor of time, and deliberate diction to compare the gradual movements in nature over time with the process of aging. Bishop draws a contrast between the process of aging and the timeless relationship she has with
Punishment, by Rabindranath Tagore, is a short story involving Indian culture and a dilemma for two brothers. Dukhiram and Chidam slaved in the fields all day, as their wives would fight and scream at each other at the house. One day the brothers came home to their wives with no food awaiting them. Dukhiram, furious and enraged, asked his wife where the food was. Radha, his wife, said sarcastically," Where is the food? You didn't give me anything to cook. Must I earn the money myself to buy it?" (Punishment, pg.1451) After a hard days work, Dukhiram couldn't handle the sarcasim. So he stabbed Radha in the head with his knife. In the mean while, Ramlochan, the pillar of the village, came to collect rent from the brothers. He walked in the house and witnessed Dukhiram sobbing in the corner. Chidam rushed over and explained the recent events to the Ramlochan. Since Ramlochan was the man who took care of legal matters, he decided to help Chidam. They both decided it would be best to place the blame on Chidam's wife, Chandara. Chidam did not wish to lose his brother, and he felt he could make up a story to clear his wife from the charges anyways. Word of the murder spread around town and soon the police came to question Chandara. Chidam had instructed her to say that Radha attacked her with a slicer, and she reacted in self-defense. However, Chandara told the police the opposite. She said that Radha didn't attack her in any way. Chidam, absolutely shocked, couldn't believe what his wife had said. She continued to confess her guilt to all who questioned her. The case then went to trial, where once again she pronounced her actions of murder. Chidam was que...
The author introduced the story with a momentary flashback that the banker recalled at night what happened in the past instead of going directly to the party from fifteen years ago. Well, this flashback style for opening suggests that the event on the party from fifteen years ago was unforgettable. Moreover, this introduction style helps to pull the audience’s attention and curiosity out more effectively. On that night, the banker and the lawyer made a bet based on the idea between life imprisonment and death penalty. The argument began with the banker’s strong statement “Capital punishment kills a man at once, but lifelong imprisonment kills him slowly. Which executioner is the more humane, he who kills you in a few minutes or he who drags the life out of you in the course of many years?” (Chekhov, 1) and the lawyer had chosen lifelong imprisonment by indicating that “To live anyhow is better than not at all” (Chekhov, 1). To prove his philosophy righteously, the lawyer agreed to stay for fifteen years in the basement of the banker’s house without the acknowledgement of the surface world. In exchange for those imprisoned years, the banker would give the lawyer two million dollars if the lawyer succeeded with...
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