Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Book analysis - Unbroken
Book analysis - Unbroken
Book analysis - Unbroken
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Book analysis - Unbroken
People in almost every day are put in life or death situations either accidentally or it’s a totally unexpected thing that now they’re put in the life or death situation. The question is though if people should be held accountable for their life or death situations. No one should be held accountable for almost dying. It’s usually a case of the wrong place at the wrong time. Crazy accidents happen all the time that most people would never want to be apart of. Yes there are situations where people know it could end deathly and still do it but they shouldn’t be held accountable for something they love.
Being held accountable for almost dying and it’s not even your fault doesn’t seem very fair. For instance in he book “Unbroken” they should not be held accountable for their situation. They shouldn’t because they were fighting for their country and got lost at sea in a little raft for many days.
You could say that maybe in this book they chose to go into the military and they knew something like this could happen. All they were doing was their job
…show more content…
For example in ‘’The life of Pi’ the ship crashed and he ended up alone on a raft with a tiger. It does not seem very logical for him to be held accountable for that. Sometimes things just happened and that person also did not want to be anywhere near a situation like that in the first place.
Some could say that in some parts in this book he should just be accountable for death when he viciously killed that fish. Anyone in that situation would do anything to survive, he is alone on a little boat with a tiger and needs food for himself.. If Pi did end up getting help from someone it seems very unfair for him to have to held accountable for being saved. He didn’t even wanna be in that situation in the first place. It seems very bizarre to make him pay something just because he got saved from a situation he didn’t even wanna be
...ch causes the boy to get hurt, is he still morally responsible? Sometimes humans know something is going to happen if no one intervenes. According to Peter Singer, if that something is bad and one can stop it with little to no cost of oneself, then it is reasonable that one ought to stop it and is blameworthy if one fails to stop it if they do not have an adequate excuse. Because Phil knows something bad is going to happen if he does not intervene and he can stop it with no cost to himself, Phil is blameworthy of letting the child fall. Phil still has free will because his desire was to not help the child and yet he is still blameworthy of not saving the child from the fall.
A responsibility is something for which one is held accountable. Often people say that one is responsible for one’s own words and actions; if something happens as a result of something one does one is responsible for it. But is it possible that something could be the result of various actions from different people who are therefore equally responsible, or is there always one person who is most responsible for the incident at hand? Such a situation where this question is relevant is present in the novel A Separate Peace by John Knowles. In the novel, the main character, Gene, ponders his responsibility for the death of his best friend, Phineas or Finny. After reading Gene’s account of the events that led to Finny’s death the reader may observe that there are three people who are all partially at fault for Finny’s death. Gene, a classmate named Brinker, and Phineas all had something to do with the incident, but who was most responsible for it?
The text states “ We often take responsibility in a way that goes beyond what we can reasonably be held responsible for.” (Sherman pg.154) This shows that the survivor takes the blame because they killed their loved one they just feel like that because the survivor was driving and didn’t wait or didn’t see the other driver that crashed into them. This proves that survivor's should not feel guilt for something they didn’t do because the other dumb person was drunk, or
It is enough accountability as it is, and any other form is simply even more mentally painful to the survivor. Another instance where this accountability appears is in “The Seventh” by Haruki Murakami. This story portrays the seventh man's life after witnessing the death of his very close friend. His friend’s death sticks with him throughout most of his life, and he constantly feels guilt as if he could have done something to prevent it. “That is probably why I never married.
If you were on a trip you had bad thoughts about, but still went and those bad thoughts became reality would it have been your fault? Imagine this, the trip was an adventure in a random jungle, which has mysterious creatures and the weather can be terrible at some points. As you went you had negative thoughts about a creature coming up to you and harmed you but also in fact as that happened a storm came leaving you without any food and or any shelter. The question is would it have been your fault this has happened, in other words would it have been your fault for continuing in the jungle? Should people in life or death situations be held account for their actions? Yes people should be held accountable for their actions because if they knew
Carcasses attract scavengers. The Guilty Party by O. Henry showcases the untimely death of a girl of twelve, Liz. Above Chrystie Street on the east side, a strange bird stalks the children of the playground. Although people say it’s a stork, locals call it a vulture. In this case, Liz is the carcass that the vulture sets its eyes on.
Main Point 1: Imagine someone that has been accused of murder and sentenced to death row has to spend almost 17-20 years in jail and then one day get kill. Then later on the person that they killed was not the right person.
. Should people have the moral right to end their lives if they so please?
In the editorial on war survivor’s syndrome, “The Moral Logic of Survivor Guilt,” by Nancy Sherman, Sherman states in paragraph 5, “We often take responsibility in a way that goes beyond what we can reasonably be held responsible for.” In war, a soldier may watch his comrade two feet away from him lose his life. Later, he will begin to feel as though it is his fault because he feels he should have stood there instead of his partner. That form of self-blame is unreasonable as life threatening situations are random and the soldier failed to realize that he did not kill his partner, the enemy did. Similarly, the seventh man holds himself accountable for K.’s death, yet it was K.’s misfortune in the typhoon that had led to his demise. Therefore, Sherman also wrote in paragraph 15, “...soldiers impose moral order on the chaos and awful randomness of war’s violence.” Like the soldiers, the seventh man fixed his own ethicalities onto the tragedy, causing the event to haunt him. His fictions prove that he should forgive himself, because he engulfed himself in guilt that should not
Those who don't see their actions as wrong won't hold themselves accountable. For example, Dr. Felix Hoenikker. He was a man who never took responsibility for himself; he simply wanted to live his own life and have a good time. When his wife died, Dr Hoenikker didn't seem to think he was responsible for her death, but he was. Dr Hoenikker encountered traffic, which he didn't want to wait around for. He abandoned his car
By the end of Dostoyesky’s Crime and Punishment, the reader is no longer under the illusion of the possible existence of “extraordinary” men. For an open-minded reader, and even perhaps the closed-minded ones too, the book is a journey through Raskolnikov’s proposed theory on crime. It is a theory based on the ideas that had “been printed and read a thousand times”(313) by both Hegel and Nietzsche. Hegel, a German philosopher, influenced Dostoyesky with his utilitarian emphasis on the ends rather than the means whereby a superman existed as one that stood above the ordinary man, but worked for the benefit of all mankind. Nietsche’s more selfish philosophy focused on the rights to power which allowed one to act in a Hegelian manner. In committing his crime, Raskolnikov experienced the ultimate punishment as he realized that his existence was not that of the “extraordinary” man presented in his theory. In chapter five of part three in Crime and Punishment, this theory is outlined by its creator, Raskolnikov. Such an innovative theory would clearly have placed him in the “extraordinary” category, but when he fails to meet its standards, by submitting to the common law through his confession, the theory crumbles right before the reader’s eyes.
We are all affected by crime, whether we are a direct victim, a family member or a friend of a victim. It can interfere with your daily life, your personal sense of safety and your ability to trust others.
Justice without truth seems like a half sentiment, perhaps in the world of politics truth can only be relative, since the whole of it will only reveal the degree to which inhumanity and senseless violence exist. Perhaps the real question is: why for the past century of modern politics have we accepted and designated to half-truths? Even though the ideal concept of truth and justice existing only together seems far-fetched, but in a world wrecked with turbulence and seeking revolution it is necessary to reclaim the ancient philosophical concepts of only determining justice based on the entire truth.
Moral ethics is the belief that all human beings are born to know right from wrong. We come into this world as good people, but the temptations and challenges in life influence our mind set to as it will. Every person on Earth chooses if they’re to follow through with their life of good or go down the path of bad. “A person’s moral ethics” (unknown.)
There are certain things in this world that should not be allowed no matter what