Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Brief introduction of Ralph Waldo Emerson
Literature impact on society
Literature impact on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Brief introduction of Ralph Waldo Emerson
Famous American essayist and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures”(Emerson). It is implied that fiction is false and truly a figment of human imagination and creativity; however, Emerson does admit that fictional writing does bring to light areas of reality that have not been uncovered. Fictional novels transcend time, unlike non-fictional writing which can be proven false and cast away, so as time passes, fictional novels begin take on a multitude of meanings as the real world evolves, illuminating infinite truths within the advancing world. This can observed in George Orwell’s novel 1984 in which he expresses his view of the year 1984 from his viewpoint in 1949, ultimately illustrating dangers of …show more content…
For instance, early on in the novel, Winston has a conversation with Syme, an editor for the dictionary of Newspeak (the language created by the Party), which results in Syme passionately saying, “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime [ideas against the values of the Party] literally impossible, because there will no words in which to express it”(52). The Party designed and continues to design Newspeak as a mean of extermination, complete elimination of the words that contain connotations regarding freedom or liberty as democratic states view it. In accomplishing this, the Party plans to effectively obliterate any chance of rebellion as their citizens progressively have weaker and weaker vocabulary to voice ideas of anti-Party value. In its most basic form, Newspeak causes citizens to lose their sense of opinion, and thus, fall into being a replaceable cog in society. These horrific ideas are evident in modern society, particularly the next generation of humanity that has grown up entirely with technological advancements that increase efficiency like texting, as explained by an article of the Sunday Times written in January 2010 by Sian Griffiths and Chris Gourlay titled “Textspeak leaves teens facing a language barrier in jobs market” in which they write, “Teenagers are spending more time communicating through electronic media and text messaging, which is short and brief. We need to help today’s teenagers understand the difference between their textspeak and the formal language they need to succeed in life -800 words will not get you a job [800 words is in reference to their assumption that teens only use a maximum of 800 different words
The novel 1984 is one that has sparked much controversy over the last several decades. It harbors many key ideas that lie at the root of all skepticism towards the book. With the ideas of metaphysics, change, and control in mind, George Orwell wrote 1984 to provide an interesting story but also to express his ideas of where he believed the world was heading. His ideas were considered widely ahead of their time, and he was really able to drive home how bleak and colorless our society really is. Orwell wrote this piece as a futuristic, dystopian book which contained underlying tones of despair and deceit.
Utilitarianism concerns itself with promoting the best outcomes for the greatest numbers in order to be ethically acceptable, utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach which aims at results of actions regardless of how they are carried out. Utilitarian monsters, a term coined by R. Nozick, are those who “get enormously greater gains in utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose. For, unacceptably, the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster’s maw, in order to increase total utility”.(The Utility Monster, 2011)
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
Upon my reading of the novel 1984, I was fascinated by George Orwell’s vision of the future. Orwell describes a world so extreme that a question comes to mind, asking what would encourage him to write such a novel. 1984 took place in the future, but it seemed like it was happening in the past. George Orwell was born in 1903 and died in 1950; he has seen the horrific tides of World War ² and Ï. As I got deeper into this novel I began to see similar events of world history built into 1984.
Utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that brings about the most overall happiness. No other moral rule has universal validity. According to Rachels, Utilitarianism is known as “we should always do whatever will produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness for everyone who will be affected by our action” (Rachels). Utilitarianism has three main principles. Consequentialism says that the actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences. Hedonism states that in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters are the amount of happiness/unhappiness that is caused. The Equality Principle states that each person’s happiness counts the same. The two most important objections to utilitarianism are Consequentialism and the Equality Principle. The replies to Consequentialism and the Equality Principle, shows that Utilitarianism is not a plausible moral theory, therefore, Utilitarianism should be rejected.
Text messaging has become a norm in our generation, as technology rapidly advances and gives way to more efficient forms of communication in a fast-paced world; and many are skeptical about the influence this new form of interaction is having on our society, especially with our younger generation. David Crystal, a professor at the University of Wales, writes “2b or Not 2b?” in support of text messaging. He insists, despite those who underestimate or negate the beneficial influence text messaging has on language proficiency, that “there is increasing evidence that [texting] helps rather than hinders literacy” and that the fairly recent form of communication has actually been around for a while and “is merely the latest manifestation of the human ability to be linguistically creative and to adopt language to suit the demands of diverse settings. In contrast, Jeffery Kluger argues in “We Never Talk Anymore: The Problem with Text Messaging” that text messaging is rapidly becoming a substitute for more genuine forms of communication and is resulting in difficulty among young peoples of our generation to hold a face-to-face conversation, engage in significant nonverbal expression, and ultimately build effective relationships with family, friends and co-workers. Both writers’ present valid arguments, however, my personal experience with text messaging has led me to agree more with Crystal’s view on the matter. Text messaging is indeed having a positive effect on society by making frequent texters primarily aware of the need to be understood, as well as offering betterment of spelling and writing through practice, and reinventing and expanding on a bygone dimension of our language through the use of rebuses and abbreviations.
Utilitarianism is zdefined, as the right way to act is one that maximizes your happiness, (pleasure and happiness is the absence of pain) while the wrong way is one that produces the opposite i.e. pain. Unhappiness here is defined as pain or the opposite of happiness. This is the basis of utilitarianism or what Mill calls the “greatest happiness principle” and it is the best ethical theory by which humans should follow. The argument for the above is as follows
The year 1984 has long passed, but the novel still illustrates a possibility for the future of society. It still remains a powerful influence in all sorts of literature, music, and social theory. George Orwell envisioned a nightmarish utopia that could have very easily become a possibility in 1949 ? the year the novel was written. He managed to create such a realistic view of humanity?s future, that this story has been deemed timeless. There will always be the threat of totalitarianism, and at some moments civilization is only a step away from it. Orwell hated the thought of it, and 1984 shows that. From his work, readers who live in prevailing democratic society have a chance to consider about these very different political systems, democracy and totalitarianism.
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
“Our generation doesn't ring the doorbell. They text or call to say they're outside,” this line is from one of the well-known social networks, Tweeter, which shows how the way of communication has change in this modern life. According to 2013 statistics by Business Insider, in United States alone, smartphone owners aged 18 to 24 send 2,022 texts per month on average — 67 texts on a daily basis — and receive another 1,831 texts (Cocotas). Nowadays, technology such as text messaging has practically replaced traditional face to face communication among the society primarily in young generations because texting allows messages to be sent fast and effortless. In order to quickly type what they are trying to say in text messaging, people are frequently using textspeak; the language created by using abbreviation rather than complete words. Based on this phenomenon, David Crystal, an honorary professor of linguistics at the University of Wales has published an article entitled ‘2b or not 2b?’ in the Guardian on July 5, 2008 comes out with the research and studies that state texting can actually improve the literacy of children and create creativity of writing. However, by observing more critically, texting do decrease a person’s ability to switch between textspeak and the normal rules of grammar and adversely affect formal writing and conversational skills.
In its political philosophy utilitarianism provides an alternative to theories of natural law and the social contract by basing the authority of government and the sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, or measure of happiness gained. As an egalitarian doctrine, where everyone’s happiness counts equally, the rational, relatively straightforward nature of utilitarianism offers an attractive model for democratic government. It offers practical methods for deciding the morally right course of action - “...an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question” (Bentham, 1780). To discover what we should do in a given situation, we identify the various courses of action that we could take, then determine any foreseeable benefits and harms to all affected by the ramifications of our decision. In fact, some of the early pioneers of utilitarianism, such as Bentham and Mill, campaigned for equality in terms of women's suffrage, decriminalization of homosexuality, and abolition of slavery (Boralevi, 1984). Utilitarianism seems to support democracy as one could interpret governments working to promote the public interest and welfare of citizens as striving for liberty for the greatest amount of people. While utilitarianism at its heart is a theory that calls for progressive social change through peaceful political processes, there are some difficulties in relying on it as the sole method for moral decision-making. In this essay I will assess the effectiveness of utilitarianism as a philosophy of government by examining the arguments against it.
In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, truth and happiness are falsely engineered to create a perfect society; the belief of the World Controllers that stability is the the key to a utopian society actually led to the creation of an anti-utopian society in which loose morals and artificial happiness exist. Huxley uses symbolism, metaphors, and imagery to satirize the possibiliy of an artificial society in the future as well as the “brave new world” itself.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and defended by James Mill. The theory says, that all the activities should be directed towards the accomplishment of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is impractical and very unrealistic because, it refuses to focus on the individuals values, morals, and happiness. Utilitarianism endorse risking ones life for the sake of other is not and in fact it rewards such behavior. Utilitarianism mentions that if the outcome of the one persons death saves many lives then therefore it is obligated to do so.
I see utilitarianism as a powerful and persuasive approach to ethics in philosophy. There are varieties of views discussed but utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally correct action is the action that produces the most good. In its simplest form it is maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. There are a few ways to think about this claim. One good way to think about is that this theory is a form of consequentialism. The right action is understood basically in terms of consequences produced. The utilitarian view is one thought to maximize the overall good; that good being the good of others as well as the good of ones self. Utilitarianism is also not partial. Everybody 's happiness counts the same. This version of the good is one that must maximize the good for everyone. My good counts just the same as anyone else 's good.