Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of leadership in the society
The importance of leadership in society
The importance of leadership in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of leadership in the society
Some people’s lives are more valuable than others. This isn’t because of their net worth. It is the actions they perform and their status to us. Such as, President Obama is more heavily guarded than a high school student because he is the leader of the United States of America, so he is more valuable in the eyes of some Americans. However, some people are less valuable because of the crimes they have committed. Such as, Adolf Hitler killed millions of people during World War II. Our first reason is that General Zaroff favored Ivan more than sailors. This may have been because Ivan was loyal to General Zaroff. This could also be because Ivan was strong, but deaf. Ivan was also a Cossack, just like General Zaroff. General Zaroff also liked Rainsford more than the sailors just because he was smart and a seasoned hunter. General Zaroff also thought that Ivan would be hard to replace according to The Most Dangerous Game “One thought is that it would be difficult to replace Ivan…” …show more content…
These people are the United State’s police officers and firefighters. Such as in the 9/11 article it states “Mr. feinberg, my husband was a fireman and died a hero at the World Trade Center. Why are you giving me less money than the banker who represented Enron? Why are you demeaning the memory of my husband?” This is an example because the fireman was a hero and he got less money than a banker. All the banker did was sit behind a desk and deal with money. So we think the fireman should have got more money than the
In the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” Rainsford was justified in killing General Zaroff. Rainsford is a hunter. He was on a yacht that crashed and he was the only survivor. The island that he swam to was named “Ship Trap Island.” This where General Zaroff lived. He is also a hunter. He has hunted anything you can think of. Even… people. He has the survivors from the ship wrecks “play” his “game.” The survivors go out into the jungle and General Zaroff goes out and finds them. They have three days to survive. If they don’t get caught in those three days, they win. If they lose… they are killed. This happened to Rainsford. Rainsford, thankfully, won the “game.” He shot General Zaroff after his win.
In “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell, General Zaroff is shown as crazy, Fearless, and Playful. General Zaroff is shown to be crazy in the story when he traps people on his island and then hunt them. “No animal had a chance with me anymore”(. This quote shows that Rainsford is crazy because during this part, he is hunting real living humans. During the story, General Zaroff is also Fearless. He shows that he is when he is hunting Rainsford and he knows he is in the tree but doesn't kill him because he wants a better fight. “His eyes stopped before they got to the limb where Rainsford laid and he smiled”. General Zaroff shows that he is fearless during this scene because he could get killed if he lets him live for a better fight but
Rainsford is an intelligent man. Early in the story, “Rainsford remembered the shots. They had come from the right, and he doggedly swam in that direction” (34). Rainsford had just fallen in the water, swam fifty feet further out, but he kept his senses in the right direction. In total darkness, Rainsford used his intelligence and intellect to reach the land. Also, I don’t think that Rainsford knew he was being sized up when Zaroff was staring at him, but when “Rainsford’s bewilderment showed in his face” (100), he quickly understood what Zaroff was leading too. Rainsford wasn’t a murderer. Sure he liked to hunt game, but he wasn’t bored as Zaroff was. Rainsford never bought into all the old tales. ‘“One superstitious sailor can taint the whole ship’s company with fear”’ (20). He never got worked up or stressed out.
In “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell, Gen. Zaroff is shown as insane, intelligent and competitive. Zaroff is shown to be insane in the story when he explains who he hunts. “So I said: ‘What are the attributes of an ideal quarry?’ and the answer was of course ‘It must have courage, cunning, and be able to reason… My dear fellow, there is one that can… Why should I not be serious, I am speaking of hunting” (Connell 69-70). This quote shows that Gen. Zaroff demented is because during this part, he is hunting humans for fun. During the
In the short story, “The Most Dangerous Game”, Rainsford was justified in killing General Zaroff. Rainsford is a hunter. He was on a yacht until he fell off the boat. He swam all the way to shore because Rainsford heard three gun shots. He walked upon a gigantic mansion. This house was for a man named General Zaroff. He was an hunter just like Rainsford in a hunt , but hunted humans instead of animals. General Zaroff wanted to kill Rainsford in a hunt with the General. Also, the General threaten Rainsford if he doesn’t hunt with him; he will be sent with Ivan.
Robert Rainsford from “The Most Dangerous Game” is a very open character. He always shows what he’s thinking verbally or just with facial expressions. When he landed on Ship-Trap island and was lost in the woods, he found a pathway. “They pointed along the cliff in the direction he had been going.” Rainsford’s attitude toward the pathway is what brought him and General Zaroff together. Rainsford had the opportunity to just not follow the hunting boot tracks and walk down a different trail but then the story would never have ended the same. “‘Thank you, I’m a hunter, not a murderer.’ ‘Dear me,’ said the general, quite unruffled, ‘again that unpleasant word. But I think I can show you that your scruples are quite ill founded.’”This quote signifies the start of conflict for the two characters.
In the short story “the most dangerous game”, Rainsford was justified in killing General Zaroff.
General Zaroff first appears to be a handsome man past his middle age, but looks can be deceiving. When he smiles, it shows his pointed teeth. This is shown in the story when the author describes, “... said the general, and his smile showed red lips and pointed teeth…(Connel 23). Having pointed teeth isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s connotating that he’s evil because pop culture use attributes such as having pointed teeth or red eyes to show that someone is evil, and this is no exception. Not to mention that Rainsford, the protagonist of the story, decides to kill General Zaroff because he realizes that he’s a threat to everything around him. It’s inferred that Rainsford later kills Zaroff when Zaroff says, “One of us is to furnish a repast for the hounds. The other will sleep in this very excellent bed. On guard, Rainsford…’ He had never slept in a better bed, Rainsford decided” (Conell 36). Although the fight is never written about, we can assume that there was a fight based off of the dialog and how time passes after the
The many men and women Joseph Stalin killed or had killed were because they either
G. Zaroff is untrustworthy because in the end after Rainfords has beaten him he still has to fight him. He shows this when Rainsford meets him in the bedroom the General says “I see, Splendid! One of us is to furnish a repast for the hounds. The other will sleep in a very excellent bed. On guard, Rainsford…..” This means that he didn’t keep his promise of letting him go after three days and still made him fight.
It is indeed sad that some people have to pay the price of criminals. However, when we see it from another perspective we might understand the reasons that may support it. The tragically events of 9/11 have change many things, in particular the safety of our people and policies of national security, as for instance the Anti-terrorism Act. The US government claims that this act is supported by several claims: one, this law is necessary to fulfill international obligations; two, many allied countries had ratified similar laws. And third, this Act provides greater protection than other legislations, (Boccabella, 2003). These legislations are not passed overnight, but after much study and critical thinking of possible consequences. What does not
The framework question, “What do we owe to each other?”, addresses complex issues of human existence. No matter the response, the answer is subjective, related to one’s own personal experiences and their understanding of morality and inequality. Yet, an individual’s answer can be further influenced by academic study and helping others in need. Philosophy, theology, and service influence the understanding of the question, “What do we owe to each other?” by allowing one to explore problems of human morality, experience human connection through theology, and feel sympathy for others.
John Arthur, an American professor of philosophy stated: “Is [Richard] Watson correct that all life is of equal value? Did Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King, for example, lead equally valuable lives? Clearly one did far more good, the other far more harm; who would deny that while King fought for people’s rights, Hitler violated them on a massive scale? Nor are moral virtues like courage, kindness, and trustworthiness equally distributed among people. So there are many important sense in which people are not, in fact, morally equal: Some lives are more valuable to others, and some people are just, generous, and courageous, whereas others are unjust and cowardly” (*insert year quote was made).
though, is that we do not have the right to place a value on another person (whether increasing
Human life is full of meaning. As humans, we assign value to many things. However, what happens when we assign a specific value to a human life? This is the issue being presented in the article, “What is a Life Worth,” by Amanda Ripley. The government is determining a monetary value to a human life, and it does not appeal to the masses. There are many problems with the cold calculation, and most people cannot see the other side of the numbers. The economic value of a human life is calculated based on the income the person was receiving, but when the check is given to a loved one of a small amount, the compensation is misinterpreted as an overall value of the human life. The true value of a human life should not be combined with the monetary value that is determined by the government, or the value of life would be worth very little.