Staring Into The Immoral Abyss: Should individuals reinvent themselves when faced with an ethical crisis? In Cormac McCarthy’s novel No Country for Old Men, it is prominent that the main protagonist, Sheriff Bell, goes through life with a strongly developed purpose only to be challenged with a dilemma that directly clashes his moral paradigm. Initially, Bell goes through a stage of life where he is shaken, needing to make up for his unethical actions. However, when he chooses this new path to right his wrongs he is eventually faced with a world that requires him to question the world itself and its morality and ethics. Eventually, having stared at the abyss for so long with no solution, he turns his back believing he has failed his purpose of life yet he still has …show more content…
However, he goes through incidents which causes him to realize that he does not fit the role of the classic sheriff, of being able to save everyone including himself. At first, Bell is faced with a child who is said to have no soul “What do you say to a man that by his own admission has no soul?”(4) It is evident that Bell cannot handle the situation he has been put into, ultimately questioning whether he is able to handle the conviction he has pursued on a kid that “knew he was goin to hell.”(3) This kid ultimately opens the door to the abyss that Bell will be staring into which contains no morals or ethics, questioning his new found purpose. However, Bell is not prepared for the future world “there is a true and living prophet of destruction and I don't want to confront him.”(4) He fears what is to come and the mass effect it will bring along with it, where the abyss that had been previously opened he fears upon first glance as when a man stares at the monster he has to be careful not to become the monster while trying to defeat it with his own
The call of conscience is continuous and it “summons” people to the challenge of assuming the ethical responsibility of affirming their freedom through resolute choice. For instance, people can structure and live their existence in a meaningful and moral way (Hyde, 2006, p. 39). Call of conscience is a driving force that pushes people to do what is morally right not only for them, but for others as well. Furthermore, call of conscience is a call of Being, “the call of Being demands courage from those who remain open to it and, in doing so, stand ready to acknowledge how their ways of thinking and acting may not be as authentic and respectful as they could possibly be” (Hyde, 2006, p. 51). A call of conscience persuades someone to do the right thing no matter what, even if a person helping someone else has the potential of having negative percussions for doing
Though individuals live by and react similarly to various situations, not all people have the same morals. I can relate to instances where I have supported a belief, regardless of the criticisms that arise, all because my choice is based upon personal morals. The same can be said regarding Debra J. Dickerson as she expresses in her novel, An American Story. In Carol Gilligan’s “Concepts of Self and Morality,” she states, “The moral person is one who helps others; goodness in service, meeting one’s obligations and responsibilities to others, if possible without sacrificing oneself” (170). After considering this statement, I strongly feel that Gilligan’s proposal lacks the depth to accurately characterize the moral person, but I am able to accept the argument raised by Joan Didion. Her essay entitled, “On Morality,” clearly provides a more compelling and acceptable statement in describing the moral person by saying, “I followed my own conscience, I did what I thought was right” (181). Joan Didion’s proposal is precise and acceptable. It is obvious that as long as people follow what they believe is the right thing to do, and approach the situation maturely, their actions can be considered examples of morality, and they can then be considered moral human beings.
Having come to this new realization of a moral compass, he is unable to do this to his new friend and states, “‘All right then, I’ll go to hell’ and tore it up” (214). He is suddenly able to better separate differences between what is truly right, and what is societally
O Brother, Where Art Thou? was phenomenal, and I found myself laughing an abundance of times throughout the movie. After viewing the film and the video essays, I agree that part of the reason why this story is truly successful is because Joel and Ethan Coen play with morality and in some ways, punish the characters repeatedly. Every time that something good occurred for a character, I was on the edge of my seat waiting for the next bad thing to follow. I feel that their constant play on morality kept the audience 's attention and left them wanting more. It also added a more humorous aspect, as Everett, Pete, and Delmar would grow confident and let their "seven deadly sins" (i.e. Everett struggled with pride) arise once again when they
Profanity is a subject that many of us find ourselves not only intimidated by, but also unable to define. Is it simply a particular group of words that should not be uttered in polite company, or is it drastically more complicated? During the last 60 years, the American populace has found themselves spinning into what many consider to be a downward spiral with the issue of morality. In the following pages I am going to discuss what I consider to be the definition of profanity, by giving an overview of the now infamous “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” monologue performed, and written by George Carlin. I will also discuss some of Lenny Bruce’s ideology, and the legal, and public persecution both groundbreaking, 1st-amendment-advocate comedians faced. I am going to show how through these men’s actions we now have more freedoms, and their influence of the definition of profane behavior in mainstream media, and also that the idea of profanity is a farce that should be buried next to slavery, war, and marriage being between a man and a woman in the list of human idea’s that simply do not make any sense.
...en when tough situations are presented to a person. Motivation from peers, educational leaders, or other members of society may help those that should learn to behave ethically, but the bottom line is following one’s inner code of ethics, which constitutes character.
If this man wants to eat a cookie before dinner, he will eat the cookie simply because he chooses to. The cookie is irrelevant. He begins to form new values with his choice as the guiding force. No more blindly obeying codes previously laid down in the past, this man has see...
Bitter about the evolution of the corruption of society, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell plays the official hero clinging to old traditions and reminiscing about the old days in No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy. Delusions of a peaceful utopia during the time his grandpa Jack was a sheriff has left Bell looking at the world through hopeless eyes; a world on its knees with only one explanation for its demise: Satan. Not necessarily a religious man, Sheriff Bell, when asked if he believes in Satan, remarks: “He explains a lot of things that otherwise don’t have no explanation. Or not to me they don’t” (218). Throughout No County for Old Men, Sheriff Bell is determined to save Llewellyn Moss in order to prove that justice can be served in a world now drenched in decay. Throughout the book and the film adaptation, the audience can see Sheriff Bell, a tormented old man, sink deeper into his bitterness and his hope sizzle away in the Texas heat.
“It just barely missed me, but in my place it swallowed everything that mattered most to me and swept it off to another world. I took years to find it again and to recover from the experience-precious years that can never be replaced” (133). Individuals who find themselves in life or death situations experience a spectrum of factors that play into the aftermath, including, mental, moral, and costly forms of accountability. The decisions individuals are forced to make in order to survive is what causes this accountability. Therefore, individuals should not be held responsible for their decisions when in survival situations.
At times in a person’s life, they might come across a few situations that leave them with a major decision between two or more options that challenge what they believe or what they might think is wrong or right. These are known as ethical dilemmas. Be it seeing a friend steal something and choosing between being honest and speaking up or letting it go. It can also be getting paid more than you earned and deciding if you’re going to be greedy and keep the money or return it. We run into these situations in our lives, some bigger and more influential on our destiny’s while others are small with no real consequences.
12 Angry men is about a group of men who are appointed as jury’s. They are put in a room until they could come up with a conclusion, on whether the boy who was convicted of murder is guilty or not.
realizes that his entire existence has been controlled by others and he is now on a journey to
...ecision making process that takes place when ethical dilemmas arise, but that it also seems refreshing as it takes us back to a time when society knew right from wrong and chose right. However, we also feel that beings capable of reason do not, as a whole, follow inherent duties. They are not always subject to imperatives which push them to act in the correct manner regardless of personal gain, or in the appropriate manner for personal gain.
In class we have watched the movie 12 Angry Men. The movie is about a jury of twelve men deciding whether a boy will go to the death penalty or go out the doors a free man. The case seems clear to many that the boy is guilty of killing his father. Two witnesses testified against the boy, which made eleven of the men convinced that the boy was obviously guilty. When the twelve men headed inside the conference room to discuss the verdict, all of the men except one juror raised their hand for guilty. The one juror wanted to discuss the outcome before he sent a boy to die. The eleven other jurors were extremely upset because they felt as if they were wasting time discussing something that was so obvious.