The Damned Human Race


The argument is very successful, simply because the author has provided the basic evidence to explain the reason as to why man should be the lower animal. Moreover, the author has conducted a very clear research which seeks to explain why human beings should be perceived as the lower animal, as compared to other animals. The argument presented provides both sides of the animals and their characteristics thus being able to effectively enable the reader to clearly see the logic behind the author’s argument. The author has therefore been very successful in challenging Charles Darwin’s theory of the Ascent of man. In order to explain why this argument is successful, this article is therefore going to critically analyze the argument.

In the first paragraph, the author talks about the theory of evolution, and points out the reasons as to why he is against the theory (Twain, 1). In addition, he provides some examples, whereby he says he has been studying some dispositions of the lower animals. The author therefore introduces the topic by first and foremost talking about the research he conducted concerning lower animals. Through this, he is therefore able to come up with a conclusion to the reason as to why those animals which are perceived to be lower animals, are actually better as compared to human beings. This therefore gives the reader an insight of what the author is really talking about. The author therefore mentions the reasons as to why those animals are not the lower animals, through explaining the issues concerning human beings.

The tone of the argument is sad, since the author does not understand why human beings are perceived to be the higher animals, when in real sense they are the lower animals. He therefore conducts a research whereby he looks at the human species, which is a very distinct species and very unique from other animals. In addition, the author also shows the distinctiveness of other animals, since they are of different colors. In the first experiment, the author talks about the hunters who organized a buffalo hunt (Twain, 2). The hunts then went forward to kill seventy two buffaloes, out of the seventy two buffaloes, they only ate one and left the other seventy one buffaloes to rot. He then compares this act to the experiment he did with an Anaconda, whereby he made seven calves to be moved into an Anaconda cage, and observed the reaction of the Anaconda. The Anaconda only crushed one of the calves and swallowed it, after which it did moved away and slept living the six calves.

Judging from the two experiments, it is very clear that the Anaconda is morally upright as compared to human beings (Twain, 3). This is consequently because, the Anaconda only crushed one of the calves which it wanted to swallow living the rest of the calves alone.  On the other hand, man who is perceived to be the higher animal as compared to the Anaconda killed seventy two animals, eating only one and leaving the other seventy one to rot. Amongst the two animals, which one seemed brighter than the other? Obviously it is the Anaconda, since it does not destroy the food after being satisfied. The Anaconda slips away after swallowing one calf. Man therefore lacks morals, and when he becomes satisfied, he destroys the other things.

In second experiment, the author presented one hundred different animals with the opportunity of storing food. All the animals stored enough food which could be able to last them through the winter season (Twain, 4). When it comes to human beings, they are concerned with their own interests, and when they have stored enough food, they move forward to humiliate the needy. In addition, the rich are consequently the ones who tend to oppress the poor through giving them hard jobs for poor pay. As compared to other animals, man is the only animal which oppresses his own kind, in order to be able to gain more favors, or to be able to achieve more. In addition, man is the only animal which would rather kill one of his kind, in order to be able to benefit himself.


Out of the animals, man is the only animal who is a slave, man enslaves another man in order for the slave to serve him. This consequently shows how inhuman human beings have become, and they can therefore indulge in wars in order to be able to gain riches, acquire land and also win over territories. Man is therefore the only animal which seems to have outgrown its morals, thus doing things differently as compared to other animals. When other animals are striving to get food, man is striving to be fashionable, better than others and to earn more riches. This has consequently made man to be the lower animal, since he cannot be able to live peacefully with his kind, and also with other kind of animals.

Work Cited

Mark Twain. The Damned Human Race.

839 Words  3 Pages


Nixon’s Presidential Character

According to James David Barber’s “Presidential Character and How to Foresee It”, Nixon is a typical “Active-Negative” president, or compulsive type, which means he devoted lots of energy and emotion into his presidency yet felt relatively low emotional reward for the effort he made. It is through five factors – character, world view, political style, power situation and climate of expectations that shape Nixon’s presidential character together. It is also suggested in the film Nixon by Olive Stone that Nixon’s tragedy is deeply rooted in his character and thus predictable.

The film Nixon introduced Nixon’s life as both the most controversial President in the US history and a human being of contradiction (Oliver, 2010). It shows how his positive-negative presidency character forms and how this character leads to his tragic resign. (The film mainly focuses on the fermentation of the Watergate event. It’s an integrated product/result of his character. The main reason that leads to this scandal is his power-holding struggle.)


According to barber, a president’s personality is an important shaper of his Presidential behavior. Personality is the way president orients himself toward life enduringly. It’s his stance when he confronts experience and himself; it’s his self-esteem and by which criteria he judges himself; it’s also his strength and weakness. Nixon is conceit about his political experience, while self-abased about his image. He’s aggressive and suspicious to everyone, while trying to escape himself. He was shy and introvert and yet he frequently exposes himself in a world of outgoing and extrovert people, the world of politics (Oliver, 2010). He not only judges himself by achievement but also wants affection. He seems to pour lots of energy into politics, yet at the core of his peculiar way of approaching the Presidency was an image of the self. All he wants is to be loved, which he never got.

He sacrifices himself to satisfy his people. He almost always hides his true self, sees everyone who disagree with him his personal enemy. He can’t separate his life with his job/politics. He’s face and smile never appears in the same place. Her daughter sees him as the kindest person, her wife sees him as an unhappy man, while his people hate/despise him, his colleagues fear him. But does he really know what he wants? What in his core is a tragically insecure human being who’s longing for love. He’s perfectionistic conscience can’t let him quit. He pays too much attention on his image. He’s focus on diplomatic affairs; he meets, listens to and talking with his people.


Political Style

Nixon’s political way of ruling seems to be very different as compared to that of his predecessors’. He rules in a very unique way which no one expects him to employ durin his reign

Moreover, he emphasizes rhetoric and personal relationship elements. He’s been a hard worker and an excellent debater with great enthusiasm during his college life. The two main themes he’s seeking are power and peace. He uses every tough means to achieve his political goal such as diplomacy, even dirty means like wiretap the political opponent if necessary. He misuses his presidential power to do illegal things.

Rooted in insecurity and repression, all of his self-contradictory behavior can be traced to his childhood life full of hardship. Ascetic Quaker family life repressed his enjoyment of life; death of his brothers strikes him with sadness of loss and impermanence of fate; his cold and strict mother Hannah Nixon cultivates his hard-working and tough quality but also enhances his insecurity. There’re several scenes in the film that shows how tremendous Hannah Nixon’s impact is on Richard Nixon’s personality and world view throughout his life. She refuses to talk with little Nixon when he lies about smoking. This forms Nixon’s defensive and sensitive personality and tendency to please others. On his brother Harold’s funeral, she asks him to stay tough and strong for the survival of family. “But what about happiness?” young Nixon asked sadly. “Strength in this life first, happiness in the next.” Hannah answers (Oliver, 2010). This forms his toughness, self-sacrifice and compulsive quality. And when Hannah Nixon is interviewed about his son’s win of election, she said coldly, “I’m proud of all of my sons.” Despite his mother’s cold response, Nixon describes her as “a Quaker saint”, always setting survival and mother’s expectation prior to self-gratification – even his pursuit and practice of presidency has a tendency of self-sacrifice. When his wife asked, “Do you really happy? Is this (presidency) really what you want?” Probably a happy lawyer with a happy family would be more close to the answer in his heart. It seems like to be a president can’t make him happy.


 Climate of Expectations

Nixon desires to be loved by his people, his family members, and also his mother. From Nixon’s perspective, the main reason that causes his personal tragedy--losing control of himself and his power, is that there’re conflicts between his political value and his individual value; and his misestimate of steps he should takes to lead to his goal.

(His personality is shaped largely by his family (Barber, 1985). He’s born in poor farmer family which belongs to working class, and brought up under restrictfull Quaker influence. “People vote for you not because of love but because of fear.” “Money works.” “Everyone is political.”

His personality is contradiction. He’s personality shapes his presidential behavior and it’s patterned. The repression that comes from his family environment tears him into two parts. Since childhood he’s always required to hide his true need in order to fulfill his family expectations. And mistake means loss of his mother’s love. There’s two Nixon. No one knows who he really is.

His personality leads to the disastrous consequences, such as his resignation of the Watergate scandals, “A president’s personality is an important shaper of his Presidential behavior… (Barber, 1985)” At the first place, he’s skeptical and evil nature leads him to illegally tap his political opponent. He’s self-denial further leads to his trust crisis against the whole world. Nixon’s over-confidence in the capacity in which his in, makes it hard for him to change his ways of operating, thus brining everything to a standstill. His personality affects the way he performs, a thing which consequently makes it hard for him to be able to rich his expectations, even after being able to reach his goals and desires (Oliver, 2010). The fear of losing power makes him to be indecisive, thus making it hard for him to be able to deliver the promises he made. Insecurity blinds his expectations, making him to abort different missions particularly when they are in progress, a good example being ending Vietnam War. He pays too much attention to himself. He can no longer act out of ration and see what is right and what is wrong. He’s trapped in his self-concern. He lost himself.

Nixon cannot be able to enjoy what he has, simply because he wants too much, expect too much, and the nation and people’s need doesn’t accordance with the true need of his own. “You want them to love you, but they never will (Barber, 1985).” “Those who hate you won’t win unless you hate them, then you destroys yourself.” He’s a man of foresight as well as a man who’s lost. But it turns out that the biggest enemy of him is himself.





Power Situation

Nixon is a leader who consequently uses his power in order to oppress his enemies. Nixon does not use his power in order to be able to achieve his goals, but in order to fulfill his unending desires (Barber, 1985). He’s born in a time during which lots of big events going on. His power-seeking roots in the insecure caused by his Family and his failures in his early political career.

From my perspective, he’s a tragically insecure human being with a bold and far vision in the essence. He’s a hero both produced and limited by the time he happened to born in. He ends the Vietnam War, opens China, brings peace with the Soviet Union ( fails to end the Vietnam War in the way he promised,). However, he fails to save the nation’s economy/from the Depression, fail to solve Watergate scandal. He’s the only U.S. president to resign the office. He’s a community/contradiction of greatness and disaster, peace and darkness, morality and evilness, power and powerlessness, legend and tragedy (Barber, 1985). This is rooted and thus can be predicted in his early life, from his family to his early political success, in terms of personality, world view and political style.


World View

Nixon’s view of the world is very different, since he acts very naïve, thus making him a victim of what he expects from the world.

Nixon’s early life also continually affects his world view. According to Barber, a president’s world view consists of his primary, politically relevant beliefs. Nixon is a realist. His class has a profound influence on his political stance. Poverty makes him understand the hardship of working class, which develops his alliance with lower class and hostility to elite class. He also believes in endeavor (Barber, 1985). On his path to approach presidency starting from a working-class civilian, he was defeated by strong opponents and bounds back. He can rely on nothing but his endeavor and perseverance. After several losses of elections of US state government and president, finally, his election of president in 1972 proved that his endeavor and perseverance are worthwhile. Another important element that consists his world view is his belief of threats of uncertainty (Oliver, 2010). The prime threat is credibility of people. It is his distrust of people that motivates him to maintain a tense, wary readiness for danger for fully control. It is also part of the reason why he attributes his failure to external reason. He has a tendency of focusing on anger towards his personal enemy’s and in this case being the Democratic Party. Nixon does not reconcile with hi inner self, and so he believes that the world seems to be very negative from what it seems to be.


Seeing Nixon as a complex human being with active-negative quality and analysis his pattern of personality, we are able to foresee that Nixon may not be the most suitable person for President (Barber, 1985).

     “When they look at you, they want to be you. When they look at me, they find themselves.”


Oliver, S. (2010). Nixon (1995) HQ “Do you think of death, Dick?” Retrieved from:

James, Barber. (1985). The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House. Englewood Cliffs.




1786 Words  6 Pages


Quiz 3

Alienation is a condition or a state that an individual feels isolated from others, especially in a place where one belongs. According to karl Marx’s theory, “Alienation is a situation where an employee is made to feel new to product of his own labor.” Considering creation of commodities, it does not lead to alienation thus; termed as a satisfying product. He illustrates alienation as a facet of species-essence whereby; it impact to the social culture changes individuals from their normal form of humanity. In theory consideration, alienation is highly based by capital ways of fabrication whereby; employees easily losses their ability in examining life as well as future. Marx clearly defines alienation as a situation which, men strength is dominated by their creation thus; easily confronted of the foreign powers (Forrest 514).

Alienation is a sphere of activity whereby; the aspect of an individual is alienated them the product formed. The finished product from hard work opposes it aliens thus; generating a powerful independent to its alien. However, Karl suggests that for estrangement, it does not only impact merely but also affects the entire process of production. “Alienation is therefore easily understood in consideration that; if the labor produces is hostility then, the production process opts to be active.” It is unfair for a person to be alienated from the produce of their labor as well as the entire process of production (Forrest 515).

Alienation is a significant aspect that plays an essential role in the recent days as pragmatic physiology therefore; it becomes a prevalent doctrine that affects individual’s self- interest. Alienation manifests the working class in that in capitalist society, workers hostility from their personal humanity appears only because their labor is expressed on the basic social feature. Marx illustrates that, “Workers to be free of their productive activities since they cannot be termed as human under the conditions of alienation.” According to Karl, in some processing industries employees hardly work under their own directions thereby; they are ordered to assemble in larger factories where they work under close supervision. However, it is clear to understand that workers are the mere extension of their work rather than the equipments being the conservatory of their work. In larger factory employees are not allowed to control their working condition, simply because everything in the manufacturing does not belong to them. The employer only buys his employees labor therefore; workers do not have to perform their activities under the direction of the employers. Alienation impacts to poverty on the working class whereby; Marx considers this as absolute as well as in relative terms that employees have to eat as much as rent they can afford. Since the 19th century, condition of employees in the developed nations has highly improved whereby; employees earning is in comparison to what their employers gain (Forrest 650).

Capitalist generates profit in terms of stealing whereby; the transformation of money into capital breaks down into two discrete. According to Marx consumption of labor generates the entire process of production. Marx illustrates that profit theft is a situation whereby; surplus-value is highly deducted and impact to lower income on the workers. The deduction theory is therefore termed as the income factor of exploitation. Profit from the capital is differentiated from wages as well as labor because; it is regulated by the entire value of capital. However, in huge manufacturing industries labor is committed to the head clerk whereby; the worker’s salary should bear no regular proportion to the capital. Whenever the number of commodity increases, the prices resolves itself into wages and the profit increases. Karl suggests that profit affects workers in that they are not able to own what they produce. However, in larger factory employees are not allowed to control their working condition, simply because everything in the manufacturing does not belong to them. The employer only buys his employees labor therefore; workers do not have to perform their activities under the direction of the employers (Carver 5).

Marx suggests that exploitation of lower class individuals opts to overcome plight of alienation, especially as catalyst for change. He felt that the working class requires a development for class consciousness. Alienation is an essential feature of Marx’s philosophy whereby it displays an interesting behavior on various aspects. Low class individuals should trounce the aspect by considering its roots whereby; rejection should be responded to as a perception of social rationality. The lower class worker is bound to unwanted labor whereby; he is alienated from all the means of production. At the expense of their lives, workers can reject their wages in comparison to the work. Workers are always miserable and unhappy while working thereby; they can easily overcome these since the labor the offer is external to their work. Individuals are being alienated from the assets of their labor as well as the entire process of production thus; unable to develop all side of personality. In the manufacturing industry the lower class individual does not fulfill him because but rather denies his personality because, it is part of his nature.  According to Marx entrepreneurs should encourage their workers and generate a conducive working environment thus; encouraging them to feel themselves at home for better results. In some instances workers feel as if they belong to someone else thus; generating something alien with his activity (Carver 5).

 Under capitalism are one and the major problem in Karl’s philosophy, since many people do not have the aspect. In Marx’s writing he emphasizes on various reasons why profit robs wages of workers. It is not genuine whereby he illustrates that capitalism generates estrangement on the economic system because; the economy does not allow minority control the means of production. However, employees survives only by selling their labor ability and power to the industry. The problem with capitalism in Marx’s writing is that, workers have to work for someone else though in 21st century employees have the right in deciding on how and what activity to carry. Karl argues that work has no added value to the employee since it generates an intrinsic worth. In relation to the argument, workers lives are dominated by their personal powers generated from the economic forces. The quintessence of civilization should be developed in the ability of workers to produce even though there is no need therefore; production process should be a human satisfaction aspect. Unlike the argument by Marx that; capitalism aims at alienating individuals from their species being, human are aimed at producing for particular reason. Another problem in Marx’s theory is on perfection that it describes human best life. “Perfection is a source of assumption whereby; people are described by their unique nature (Fromm, Erich, Karl & Bottomore 35).”


In conclusion the writing illustrates alienation of product in variety of ways. Marx suggests that no matter how deeply disaffection impact on workers, the ruling class will always be driven by the system of creation. Therefore, an alienated individual is separated from the society as well was personal species being.  The entire notion of alienation is the fundamental controversial aspect of Marx’s philosophy. In his writing alienation describes a primary product of entrepreneurial scheme though, in early stages alienation is hardly a considered aspect. The lower class worker is bound to unwanted labor whereby; he is alienated from all the means of production. At the expense of their lives, workers can reject their wages in comparison to the work (Fromm, Erich, Karl & Bottomore 35).


Domination of employers over the work indicates a symptomatic of authoritative nature therefore; Marx generates a genuine understanding of class classification whereby he is able to analyze capitalism in terms of alienation. Estrangement captures all the aspects of entrepreneurship which constitute to individual’s unrestraint. Marx clearly defines isolation as a situation which, men strength is conquered by their creation thus; easily confronted of the foreign powers. Alienation is a sphere of activity whereby; the aspect of an individual is estranged them the product formed. (Forrest 813).

Work Cited

Fromm, Erich, Karl Marx, T B. Bottomore, and Karl Marx. Marx's Concept of Man. , 2013. Print.

Carver, Terrell. "Marx, Alienation and the Grundrisse Reconsidered." Conference Papers -- Western Political Science Association, 2009 Annual Meeting, p. 1. EBSCOhost,


Forrest E. Bair. Philosophical Classics: From Plato to Derrida.Routledge. 2016. Print












1392 Words  5 Pages

Emmanuel Kant’s theory: the Great Gatsby- an ethical judgment on Daisy Buchanan and on Jay Gatsby

Love, lust, and the pursuit of happiness, How has Daisy Buchanan remained loyal to Tom Buchanan?

            Ethics is a recurring problem in Great Gatsby since the  characters  displays  samples  of  different  actions and  behaviors  that  can  be classified as both  ethical  or unethical. Daisy is the loyal wife to Tom Buchanan, a wealthy man of means. Tom comes from an old family of blue-bloods and extreme wealth. He has taken care of Daisy and her lifestyle of comfort and carefree living, partying and extravagance for years (Luhrmann 14:23). She loves Tom and married him years ago because she had fallen in love with him. They have enjoyed many years together and consummated their love with the birth of a daughter into their family. Daisy has shown Tom in many ways how she loves him and her loyalty to him and their family. Tom also loves Daisy and takes care of her because she has shown her loyalty to the family.  Daisy stays with Tom even though he has been unfaithful to her. He has affairs with other women and Daisy is aware of these indiscretions and yet, she remains loyal and stays with Tom. She opts  to  sick with her  family  mainly because  she  is not mean  and  what  the best even when Tom  does not replicate.

            Daisy is also supportive of Tom, thus showing her loyalty by standing behind what he professes. When Tom is confronting the house staff, a butler, he adjusts the butler's tie and makes a comment that "they need us to take care of them" (Luhrmann 38:13). A statement that Daisy quickly quips about, how Tom reads the thick books with long words and implies he is superior because of his knowledge, thereby edifying him.

            Despite  the  fact that  daisy is  characterized  with  glowing charm and beauty  she is not  selfish even when  she hurts.  She is  loved  by Gatsby  but  she struggles  to  maintain her loyalties to  Tom  who  has  an  affair with  his  married  mistress  but still  supports the family.  She is a character that is linked to purity, light and innocent as she presents herself with so much dignity.  She  refuses  to  make a choice  at that  time when  Tom and jay  are  in the same room because  she does not  want to  hurt  her  husband  and chooses  to  stick to the  deceitful  relationship (Luhrmann 63:23).  Daisy  wanted  the  false curse  of happiness upon her  own  daughter and  Tom as  that  is all  that  she ever  knew off.

            Her  loyalty  is additionally  seen  in that  her  love  for Tom  still remained  despite  that  she once had  and  already  has  Jay.  She  cannot  connect herself  to  allow  Tom  to  leave  because  she  is only  concerned that  he will get  hurt.   This  is a form of selflessness  despite the fact that Tom  had continually  subjected  her  to hurts  by  choosing  to  have a mistress even after  she  was aware about it.  She admits that she once loved Tom but he let her expectations and ambitions down (Luhrmann 84:11).  Her  ability  to set  standards  to live  demonstrates  her loyalties  because  she  followed  her illustration  although the  decisions  were  not  necessarily the best.  In numerous  occasions she  choose her  family over  what  she really  wanted  because she  hoped that  Tom  would  be  supportive and  loving  and  she lost  her  love for him  in the process.  She cannot therefore be regarded as selfish because she choose to be happy after having tried.

            Jay Gatsby as Manipulative

Jay Gatsby is the primary example of being manipulative.  Jay utilized  his power  to  conduct   crimes that  were targeted  at increasing  his wealth  and developing his status  in order to win Daisy  since money  was  what  was hindering them from being  together.  So in order to  rise  his social  ladder he abandoned  ethics  to  mainly  focus  on his individual  interests.  Despite the   fact  that  he  understood  that  Daisy was  married  to  Tom  he  disregarded ethical codes  to pursue  his feelings.  This therefore, demonstrates the willingness of Jay in forsaking his ethics in order to obtain daisy’s love which was equivalent to money.  The  primary  goal that was held  by  Jay  was get  Daisy and  retain her to himself  even  without  true love. 

Jay  has  a long  and complex way of  obtaining  daisy  and  he  chooses  to  use  Nick.  Jay befriends Nick by introducing him to his business operations as a way of getting closer to Daisy. Nick  invites  Daisy  for  tea  and they both  agree that  they  should  not  let tom  know  about  their plans. However, the tea meting  had fully be  organized  by  Jay  who is using  his  friendship with Nick in order to get  an opportunity  of  meeting  Daisy.   Jay   has  to  use  nick  to bring Daisy to  his  parties  which  he throws  hoping that  the  relationship amid  Nick and daisy  would bring  her  to his parities (Luhrmann 90:21).  As  a way  of impressing  daisy  jay  utilizes  his relationship with the investor  in  creating more  money  that  is  enough to offer  support  to  Daisy  so that  she  can be  impressed  by  his  efforts  and fall  for him.

Jay manipulates everyone including his partner, investor and Nick in undertaking the blind love pursuit.  All that  Jay  does   that includes each  purchase  that  he makes,  all the  parties   that  he throws  can be  categorized  as a part  of the  extensive scheme that is objected  at  drawing Daisy  back to  him completely (Luhrmann 71:20).  In  a single sense  this  can  be  categorized  as  a love  pursuit  but on the other  end  it  can be considered  as a manipulative illusion.  Jay  develops  the incapability  of dealing  with  the real situation  as  he  focuses  more  on  what  he wants  thus setting  his norms aside  which  eventually  leads to  the arrival of  his death.

Jay  has not preserved  any  form of loyalty  because  his pursuit for  obtaining daisy  is a fantasy  for  Daisy  as  the idea  and  not  based  on her  personality.  After  his meeting  with  Daisy  and  Nick  he  s more  than  determined  to win her  even without  making any considerations.  He uses the loyalty of those  close  to  him  to get  what  he  want  which is  wealth  and a closer  way of meeting daisy.  In the  beginning,  money or rather wealth  was  the essential  thing that  hindered them  from  sticking together  and  he  therefore made  sure  that  he never  survives  without  its presence (Luhrmann 33:44).  Jay’s  perseverance and influence on  achieving   his objectives  is in many perspective  deceitful  his  he  only  considered  what he receives  and what  he will  obtain  at the  end  without  considering  others.  His friendship   with Nick only started to grow after the realization that Nick was a cousin to Daisy.  With  this  he  only  wished to  benefit  by ensuring that  Nick  brings his pursuit closer which implies that he never  cared  about their friendship.


            Jay Gatsby is a manipulative  character  who  only  focused  on  what  he wanted  by  using  his  relationship  with others  to  get  close to  Daisy.  His association with Nick only developed after the relation that him and Daisy were cousins.  He used Nick in bringing daisy closer while the investor helped in creation of more wealth that would hold up and impress Daisy.  On the other  hand,  Daisy  is  loyal  since  despite her  hurting,  beauty  and charm  she  remained loyal to Tom  and choose her at the end.




            Work Cited

Luhrmann, Baz. The Great Gatsby. 2013. Retrieved from

Birsch, Douglas. Introduction to Ethical Theories: A Procedural Approach. Waveland Press, 2013.


1264 Words  4 Pages

Classical Realism / Neo-realism or Structural Realism

Realism can be described as an extensive and extensive model that differs from the establishment of structural realism through classical realism. Classical realism concept  asserts  that human  nature  influences   the  status  as well as  individuals performance  in a way that  places superiority  on ideologies (Hobson 45).  This derives the implication that  the concepts of  classical realism is based  on ideologies in the form  of authority  and will  in the domination  as the most  significant  human nature’s aspect.  On the other hand, structural realism focuses particularly on the global anarchic system’s structure (Hobson 45). More apparently, classical realism contrarily to structural realism prioritizes on human’s nature (Hobson 45).  Structural realism  emphasis more  on  both  forces  that are  above  and  lower to the  provided  state which  asserts more  on  performance conflict while classical realism describes  human nature as the  international politics drive (Hobson 45).

Classical as well as structural realism shares two beliefs that are grounded anarchy logic as the international relations superior constraint and state being the primary player in global politics (Hobson 47).  They  both  have a common  assumption that  global  politics  outcomes  descriptions  can be  derived  by the assessment  of interactions  as well as national  operations  with additional forces.  Despite the  highlight  made by  structural  realists is  international  anarchical  concept  is  equal to that  of classical  realism that  asserts  on a permanent human  nature as part of political  influence  given that  both concepts  originates from one  thought school (Copeland 3).  However, both ideas hold three core differences. In that, the  occurrence of conflict  in  classical realism  occurs  since individuals are suck,  while  in structural realism  conflict  primarily  occurs  since the  anarchical  international structure’s system is not interesting.  In addition, classical realism presents two distinct states one that is based on the authority that wishes to maintain the system and the authority that wishes to offer amendments so that the created system can offer more benefits to them. Structural realism offers no  kind of disturbance  to  the existing classical  states  because  it offers  the general  argument  that  each of the given state is a general attempt  of transforming the  system as  a form of benefits  maximization. Moreover, classical realism is  mainly  focused  on  higher  or authoritative  politics  which  are based  on security  as well as the wars subjects while  neorealist  differs  with  the extensive  in which  it approaches  all  the political  interactions status (Copeland 4).

Structural realism’s critiques why developed by   after the failure to  develop predictions  as well as justified explanations in  regard  to the  cold war end  as well as the  Soviet Union’s death.  In that the critiques held that the   theory ignores the general occurrence of domestic transformations that occurred within USSR (Keohane 58). This therefore exposed the neorealist’s to get the chance of understanding and making predictions of the changes in the specific behavioral status. They criticized neo-realism mainly on by stating that is  a traditional strategy that is mainly  grounded   on asserting on  authority  struggle in  the  affirms  world without  effective considerations of  behaviors  and  how  authority  is a  primary  influence on political status. Keohane made the argument that the theory is only offering beginning grounded for other theories related to international relations (Keohane 160). In addition the criticism asserts that the theory  is not  accurate as it  does  not offer considerations  for the  primary changes  that  occurs in the political world  since it is highly limited  by conceptual  structure  in the exclusion  of units. On the other  hand  Ashley  makes  the  stronger  criticism  by making the emphasis  that  the theory offers a major undermining  of its statistical ground by the adoption  of  utilitarian and  adds  positivism to its own thoughts with the acceptance  of  scientific values and information (Keohane 132). The criticism is appropriate since the theory is more focused on scientific contributions rather than on the reality of human influence on political development (Keohane 256).

In my opinion I believe  that  classical realism  in  more  valid  in offering accurate explanations in regard to the  surrounding of global politics. Classical realism makes assertion on human nature as the primary force that drives global politics which is true.  The theory makes the general argument that the purpose political laws are primarily coordinated by human behavior (Jackson and Georg 83).  Based on the  statement  by the principle  it is  highly  possible  to generate  a concept that  best  illustrates political regulations and effectively  gain the general  capability  of making a distinction  amid  false  and actual occurrence.  The principle particularly explains that global politics are particularly based on observable human nature’s laws and the trial to challenge them is an obvious failure (Jackson and Georg 84).

Based on the theory authority demonstrates the existing control held by an individual over another which can clearly be observed in the real world.  The  theory  is more  grounded  on the  interests as well as the  motives  of political influence in offering  a reliable as well as  a justified explanation  in regard  to the  existing  distinctions amid authoritative struggles (Jackson and Georg 83).  Its focus on behaviors portrayed by humans makes it more relevant in explanations for the existing global politics since the authority is effective in controlling political developments.  This focus is crucial in the illustration military abilities are developed constantly in order to fit the authority’s global power. The usual values as well as standards that are held by the international community keeps check on the immoral and careless conducts portrayed in politics (Jackson and Georg 84).


            Work Cited

Copeland, Dale C. The Origins of Major War. Ithaca [u.a.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2000. Print.

Hobson, John M. The State and International Relations. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000. Print.

Jackson, Robert H, and Georg Sørensen. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Print.

Keohane, Robert O. Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. Print.

983 Words  3 Pages

Philosophy and theology




            Aristotle argues that the polis is prior in being to the family and that the family is like a part in relation to the whole to show how the ultimate end is something individual for all human beings[1]. His argument is based on the belief that the polis is what helps human beings to carry out their natural functions. Human beings are viewed as not being self efficient and need the polis to direct them on which natural functions to engage in and this makes it prior to the family. The family is however a part of the whole as people come together to perform these natural functions. The significance of this truth is that it helps to understand why people function the way they do and the reason why the polis is such a dominant factor throughout society. However, since all human beings have free will, the ultimate end remains something individual as everyone has the freedom to choose how to act upon the influence caused by the polis.

            According to Plato, the greatest evil that can befall a polis is injustice. A police constitutes of different people with different interests living together in harmony. As such, there must be a system to ensure that everyone is given what is owed to them and that everyone’s rights and freedoms are respected[2]. For this to happen, there must be justice as this will ensure fairness and equality for all within the police and lack of it would therefore be the greatest evil that could exist in a polis. Because of its importance, every community must have a system to ensure that justice prevails[3]. While some may argue that the best condition to maintain justice is democracy, Plato strongly disagrees with this notion. His critique is based on the basis in which democracy operates. Democracy operates under a majority rule where the needs of the many outweigh those of the few. He argues that all democracies will eventually lead to a society filled with chaos especially because it gives some people the power to interfere with the lives of others. It operates by electing people into power and giving them authority to rule over others. However, this power has the tendency to corrupt and, according to Plato, it will be the reason behind the chaotic society brought about by democracy.


            Justice is described as tool that is essential in ensuring good leadership. It is also a whole made up of parts as different individuals have different roles to play to ensure that justice is observed, through cooperation, people living in a community make up the parts that amount to the whole that is justice[4]. Although has the capability of doing good, this common good is facilitated by justice which ensures that men do not behave like animals. The city is therefore prior and important to people on an individual basis in that without it, most of the actions that people engage in would be unjust. On their own, people tend not to be self sufficient and they rely on the city to offer guidelines describing what is expected of each individual. By working together, locals cooperate with those in authority and lawmakers to create the whole that is justice. in reference to the whole community, justice is therefore a quality where the community ensure that every member of society is given what is owed to them[5].


            Authority is something that is naturally part of the human condition as it can be traced back to human origin. Despite the fall of our parents, human beings started life under an authoritative figure that they believe to have given life to everything on earth. They learnt that they are supposed to obey as this is an authoritative figure that is powerful and possess a lot of knowledge[6]. Since coming to life, human beings learn that there is such a thing as authority and that only those in power have control over the others[7]. Being able to talk, human beings were more intelligent and thus had authority over animals. Even if our parents had not fallen, human beings would have continued to maintain their authority over animals. Just as God had authority over man, human beings would have come to the realization that even as human beings, there are those who have more authority over others. The fall of our parents simply reduced the authority that human beings originally possessed.


            Man is naturally political and this is facilitated by nature. Of all beings, man was the only creature granted the ability to speak and since nature does not do anything just for the sake of doing, the gift of speech is what led to man’s political nature. Being able to speak meant that man could share ideas and make ones desires known[8]. Since human beings often live as a community, politics is something that occurs naturally as people must find a political way to peacefully coexist. Furthermore, human beings are naturally inclined to achieve the common good. Since politics is the most self governing approach towards achieving the common good through association, human beings are naturally inclined to incorporate politics into their different forms of association. The common belief is that through politics, people will be able to live in such a way that helps every member of society to reach the common good. Politics is therefore not just a choice but also a way of life[9]


According to Catholic tradition, the contemplative life of an individual is said to be objectively higher than their active life. The contemplative life in this case is the life where people will go to live with their creator after death depending on the type of active life they had[10]. According to Ramsey, human beings must strive to have a pure heart as this is the only way to guarantee that they will live a better afterlife with their creator in his kingdom. Although a good contemplative life is dependent on the nature of the active life, the contemplative life is regarded as being higher as it is the end that all Catholics strive to achieve. In any given community, the common good is essential as it helps people to purify their soul and live in a way that they will see the kingdom of God. The contemplative life can therefore be said to be a telos as it gives Catholics a purpose while the active life is the skopos since it gives them a way of determining how they will live their lives so as to achieve the telos[11].


The argument that the end of the universe will be extrinsic is based on the view that the universe is kept intact by the extrinsic relationships that exists between the different living and non living things that exists on earth. Since this relationship is based on this relationship, it is therefore correct to assume that the disintegration of this relationships or if the relationships end up harming the universe will result to its end[12]. The intrinsic argument on the other hand holds that the end of the universe will be caused by the being (God) that created it. Since God is the center of unity that sets everything in motion, he will therefore be the one to bring an end to the universe. The relationship between the intrinsic and extrinsic end of the universe as one resulted to the other. A supreme being initiated the push that intrinsically led to the universe coming into existence[13]. However, his initial push resulted to the extrinsive elements which create the notion that the end of the universe will be caused by its extrinsive nature. However, the most ideal assumption for the end of the universe is the intrinsive one where the end will be caused by God who led the universe into being.


Through examining how God governs the cosmos, one is able to better understand the meaning of personhood and the cosmos. God is depicted as the Supreme Being responsible for all actions that led to the universe coming into being. Similarly, an individual is in charge of the nature of life one leads. All consequences are therefore as a result of the individual’s personhood. God also gave beings the ability to live in accordance with the universe created; similarly, citizenship is facilitated for people who coexist in the same community[14]. Since peaceful coexistence is determined by how well people live each other, both freedoms offered through personhood and citizenship must be exercised in such a way that there is harmony similar to how the universe operates. The term ‘for his own sake’ depicts that, even though God is the creator, all beings were created for a purpose and that they were given free will to serve their purpose. Although god created things out of his goodness, everything was given free will to decide how to live out their lives. This tells us that all human beings are equal. No individual was created to be superior to the other and any superiority that people experience is as a result of people’s desire to achieve goodness[15].





Anangnostopoulous G, (2011) “Socratic, Platonic and Aristotelian studies: Essays in honor of      Gerasimos Santas” Springer Science & Business Media

Aquinas T, (n.d) “On the truth of the catholic faith”

Aristotle, (2008) “politics” Cosimo

Aristotle, ., & Simpson, P. (1997). The Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill: University of North        Carolina Press.

Ramsey B, (1997) “John Cassian: The conferences”



[1] Aristotle, (2008) “politics” Cosimo

[2] Anangnostopoulous G, (2011) “Socratic, Platonic and Aristotelian studies: Essays in honor of Gerasimos Santas” Springer Science & Business Media

[3] ibid

[4] Aristotle, ., & Simpson, P. (1997). The Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

[5] ibid

[6] Aristotle, (2008) “politics” Cosimo

[7] ibid

[8] Aquinas T, (1995) “On the truth of the catholic faith”

[9] Aquinas T, (1995) “On the truth of the catholic faith”

[10] Ramsey B, (1997) “John Cassian: The conferences”

[11] ibid

[12]Aquinas T, (n.d) “On the truth of the catholic faith”

[13] ibid

[14] ibid

[15] Aquinas T, (n.d) “On the truth of the catholic faith”


1694 Words  6 Pages

The Influence of Psychology in Relation to the Environment

  1. Charles Darwin’s theories and process of evolution have greatly influenced the modern day psychology, in the sense that, they provide the reasons to why people tend to live and behave in a certain type of way (N.W, 2002). These theories and evolutionary process have not only provided the reasons as to why human beings behave in a specific way, but they have also explained the way the environment affected the way people behave and also how they are related to other animals in the ecosystem. This paper is therefore going to discuss how the process of evolution have affected the 21st century psychology.

There are three processes which are in the evolution and natural selection. The first process is the process of struggling between individuals. In this process, individuals tend to struggle for food or otherwise positions in order to get them (N.W, 2002). This is consequently because, there are very many people, and the positions or otherwise the food, is less. Thus for an individual to be able to survive, he or she needs to work very in order to make it. The second process is the process of grouping due to the same needs. People with the sae needs tend to come together, in order to work hand in hand, and thus being able to get whatever they want. The third process is the process of realizing what one wants and what he or she is supposed to work for. Judging from the three process, they significantly influence the 21st century psychology, simply because, each and every process explains how human beings are and how they behave (Wolfgang, 1999). This therefore makes it easier for one to be able to understand the way the mind of a human being works, since people operate within the principles of the three process.

  1. Darwin has influenced science and psychology, simply because, he conduct different researches which showed the relationship between human beings and animals. Through his research, he wrote that human beings and animals were the descendants of the same ancestors (Wolfgang, 1999). This therefore led to the scientific research which was conducted in the 1900s and 2000s, where it was evident that human beings and animals are indeed related, simply because they share a lot of hormones and genes. Moreover, through Darwin’s theories, scientists had to conduct researches on human behaviours and their way of learning, thus coming up with inferences of how the human mind functions (N.W, 2002).

In addition, scientists were only conducting researches based on the human behaviour, but due to Darwin’s theories, scientists started conducting researches based on individual differences. Much of the current psychology strongly depends on the biological basics which are found in Darwin’s theories (Wolfgang, 1999). This therefore shows how dedicated Darwin was, in making sure that he leaves traces whereby scientists can be able to pick up from and conduct researches. Darwin was curious, and he wanted to know what influences human beings to behave in certain ways. There were therefore no external influences, since Darwin was only dedicated, to come up with a reason as to why people tend to behave differently from each other, when they are actually the same. Furthermore, he loved and enjoyed conducting researches about human beings and their relationship to animals (N.W, 2002). This therefore made him to conduct numerous researches in order to come up with different theories.


N.W. (2002). “Let’s Quickly Go Over that again…” Recapitulation and the Waldorf Curriculum: The Online Waldorf Library Journals.  Volume 7.

Wolfgang S. (1999). The High Stakes of Standardized Testing: The Online Waldorf Library Journals.

612 Words  2 Pages

 The importance of the soul

            Socrates gives an account which proposes that all human beings ought to care for their souls and that the best way to do this is to live a philosophical life. This is seen in the way he handles the case made against him when he is taken to court for various crimes among which are misleading the youth and being a pagan. Socrates is brought to trial to face the charge of having committed these crimes. However, he is fully confident that he is innocent and believes that this is what the court will conclude after his side of the story is heard. Socrates is a wise man who often engages with the youth teaching them about matters of the world. He also believes that, although the people have different religions, they all seem to be worshiping the same god and this ideology constitutes some of his teachings. However, belief in only one god is considered to be paganism and he is taken to court as he is seen as misleading the youth into being pagans. While making his argument in what is known as The Apology, Socrates shows the importance of taking care of the soul and living a philosophical life.

            According to Socrates, all virtues and vices are found within the soul and this makes it more important than the body. He also believed that an individual’s character was greatly determined by the quality of the soul. Regardless of whether a person was sick or healthy, it is the state of the soul that determines whether the individual is happy or not (Plato 5). Because of this, people must strive to always take care of the soul and live a life that is full of virtue and pious even if it went against what majority of people believe. Socrates demonstrated this when he meet up with Euthyphro who was on his way to convict his father of murder. Despite the fact that his family and most of his friends tried to convince Euthyphro not to convict his father for killing someone who was guilty of murder, he opted not to listen as convicting his father for the crime he had committed was the right thing to do. Euthyphro was considered to be a wise man and the fact that he was so committed to doing what is pious proved that in order to take care of the soul, one must do what is right regardless of what majority of people think (Plato 4).

            Socrates was fully aware that the Athenian people did not understand what living a pious life meant as this was the reason as to why they were so willing to charge him in court. He therefore asked Euthyphro to explain to him what being pious so that he could explain to the court and show them that his actions were intended for good (Plato 5). While Euthyphro gave various explanations as to what could be considered to be pious, none were convincing enough for Socrates. However, one explanation that came close was the suggestion that an individual’s actions are pious if the gods found them to be so and impious if they were seen as impious by the gods. By involving the gods in the discussion regarding the importance of living a pious life, Socrates teaches us that taking care of the soul and living a philosophical life not only protects an individual while on earth but also after their death. Protecting the soul therefore is the key to a happy life here on earth and also in the afterlife (Plato 44).

            Socrates further teaches us that taking care of the soul and living a philosophical life protects people from false prosecution and that any false accusation or false testament will be proven wrong. When Socrates was accused of being a pagan and misleading the youth, he had strong faith that the court would see that he was innocent and set him free (Plato 3). Even when he was sentenced to death, he did not lose faith in the belief that the way he lived his life was enough to prove his innocence. According to Socrates, living a philosophical life meant doing the right thing even if it meant going against the majority. This was demonstrated when Crito approached him while in prison advising him to escape before he his sentencing. Crito made the argument that majority of his friends believe that Socrates was innocent and that they were willing to offer him shelter if he escaped. In response, Socrates made the argument that just because a majority of people agree on something does not make it right. If this was the case, it would also mean that Socrates was guilty because majority of the jurors believed that he was guilty of the charges made against him (Plato 48).

            While in his cell, Socrates dreamt that he would sail to Phthia which was his home. Although he was waiting to be executed, his dream could be interpreted to mean that even death was not a bad thing as his soul would be able to go home. Through his experience, Socrates teaches that it is important to live a philosophical life and take care of the soul as it is the only way to guarantee happiness. Living a philosophical life means doing the right thing and observing piety even if it means going against the majority. A pious life helps one to take care of the soul and to ensure that, even after death, the soul will move on to a happier afterlife.





Work cited

Plato, “Five dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo” 2002


943 Words  3 Pages

Max Weber, power and the film 'Capitalism: A love story'

            Michael Moore is regarded as a broadminded producer as who is subjective and a criticizer who always criticizes the issues that the united States face. His production on a love story is not in exclusion as it is one of the informative stories that provide us with some of the reality of the economic as well as capitalism system (In Snee & In Benson 2015). It therefore clearly, sarcastically and practically demonstrates how these issues resulted to consequences that are still affecting the citizens in a negative manner even up to date. There is that price that these citizens have to pay for being in a capitalist state. Thus this film is one of the best sources of information that offers us with adequate as well as reliable and clear message on capitalism side that would not be available as people who support it would not want to inform the people about it. This paper therefore will have an in-depth discussion on capitalism, the justification given to it and some of the problems that are associated with it as demonstrated by Michael Moore on the film, a love story.

            The film was established during that moment when the United States and the global world were facing an economic crisis in the year 2009. This is where the American citizens showed their control and their need to impose change since they believed that the republicans had caused an economic recession. Michael therefore discusses on the status of the Americans economy as well as the greed that the entrepreneurs which had the ability to ruin the poorest with an aim of making themselves rich. His production thus follows the incidents of a number of families who have been faced with eviction simply because they were unable to pay their debts. He then tracks the finances and to amazement he finds the organizations that are responsible for this misery on the poor (In Snee & In Benson 2015). It is thus in this case that we are able to discover that everything is not the way we may view or think they are and thus the big dream of the Americans that seemed to exist is not in existence and it will unfortunately not be able to exist. Thus it is so saddening that the Americans idea on nobility, struggle, hope, hard work and determination goal to achieve what they want is all not true as all they have to contribute to these organization’s profits.

            This film is thus very important n the modern history as it will enhance the Americans to open their eyes and be able to understand them to view things the way they are and no the way they seem to be. In this case, they will be able to understand the effects of capitalism in their nation. Michael thus exposes what the politicians may not be willing to expose on the economic system since they are the winners (In Snee & In Benson 2015). The love in the past seemed entirely innocent and there was a price that was to be paid. This hence resulted to unemployment cases, high poverty rates and more wealth for the rich.

            It is thus important to note that capitalism is not in any way he best way for all of us to follow as it is not in any case a love story as there is so much negativity that comes along with it. This love is therefore not true but rather hypocritical as it favors only a small group of people who are in power leaving others rot in poverty. Therefore capitalism is all but a fake love for the US citizens.







In Snee, B. J., & In Benson, T. W. (2015). Michael Moore and the rhetoric of documentary.



639 Words  2 Pages

Aristotle (Politics)

 In book one Aristotle asserts that “for mankind always acts in order to obtain that which they think good’ (Kitchener, 1999).  The use of the words they think in the statement tends to imply that people seek good on the basis of how they define this term. It implies that every pursuit or action aims at some good or for the reason of what the good has been declared to be (Kitchener, 1999). If humankind would seek that they think as being good, it means that people will seek what they see as being good to themselves. If this were true the communities, state or political, would aim at what is good and highest for all.  This means that actions taken by humankind as a political state in form of law, guarantees good order, for an individual and for the entire community

However, there are concerns with the idea that mankind actions always aim ay attaining what they think good for an individual or for the whole community. If humankind does not choose to act for the sake of something else, would there be so many activities aimed at self-harm or endangering the whole community? Humankind has been known to embark on certain activities whose products are either worse or better than those activities. in a world where cultural differences exist that have different philosophical view about well-being , it is hard to conclude that all activities done by human beings are aimed at “good”; May be for the sake of personal good but not always for the good of the whole community (LeGates, 2015).  Well-being is normally tailored by cultures, some of which have values that encourage vices such as self-centeredness.


Kitchener ,(1999).Politics Aristotle. Batoche Books. 

LeGates, R., T., (2015).The City Reader. Routledge. 252

299 Words  1 Pages


According to Robert Bolt, there is a contradiction between the moral sense and the several periodic moral and legal loopholes of Thomas More. In the play, More can be considered to be the only character with integrity. This is because More is against Henry’ divorce when he avoids speaking against the oath of supremacy. This shows that he respected God’s law beyond all other law but he acknowledges it (Bolt 42). He regards man law as the paramount lead for an act despite the fact that it contradicts God’s law occasionally.

 However, More does not like Cromwell or Rich as he is not able to compromise his beliefs. This regards More and Cromwell view that no one opposes the injustice going on. At time More can be regarded as to be hypocritical because he tries to strike a balance between the law and his deeply rooted sense (Bolt 64). Despite the fact that he obeys the law fully the prosecutor comes up with false accusation at the end to prosecute him (Sheward 21). Roper is another character who follows the ideal law rather than his conscience in which More tries to argue that Roper is trying to navigate his principles in order to fit in. Roper tries to switch willy-nilly to Lutheranism from Catholicism. As a result, Bolt says that he cannot understand the moral alignment in the world (Bolt 73). This implies that we should focus on improving on ourselves and the society we live in. From his behavior, More can be regarded to be a strong man whose principle are deeply rooted.

Richard Rich is a symbol that reflects on the tendency of giving in to the temptation of the status and wealth. Rich is a deceitful hero as he seeks to advance himself both socially and politically at any cost. However despite his selfishness act, he discloses his humanity when he fifths his own conscience upon selling out his friend More (Bolt 40). Rich can be considered to be similar to the Common Man due to the awareness of his moral shortcomings.  Just like Cromwell, Rich serves a frustrated to More which highlights a superior character of More (Sheward 21). Due to More superior character in most instances Rich is seen to light up in a less obvious manner. In the opening scene, we can see More telling Rich that he can be a teacher in which More shows great interest in the moral fiber of Rich as he wishes him to quell on the self-interested urge in order to gain wealth and status (Bolt 98). More is able to understand Rich faults in the beginning of the play though he tried to nurture Rich anyway. Therefore this can be considered to be tragic as Rich prejudices himself eventually to condemn More to death.

The Common Man was used to mean the universe but many people regards it to mean low class. However, Bolt laments that both the upper class and the lower and who represented the image failed to view the Common Man as an equal representative of themselves. Despite how Bolt out looked his characters the Common Man was both a baseness and universality as he showed human being as base and immoral (Bolt 109). Despite that the Common Man acted in many different roles he established the nature of the universe as he was able to develop a coherent character throughout the play. Matthew is a Common Man who is seen to suppress his guilty conscience for selling More out despite the expression of affection by More for him (Bolt 43). In general, the common man played a role of complicity in More persecution. Therefore the common man represents humanity as his role was to draw us all to the central moral dilemma.





Work Cited

Bolt, Robert. A Man for All Seasons. , 2013. London : Bloomsbury Methuen Drama

Sheward, David. "A Man For All Seasons." Back Stage (1946-5440) 49.42 (2008): 21. Business Source Complete. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.

671 Words  2 Pages



Is the trend of viewing or representing things the way they are and also treating the subject matter that shows a cautious description of everyday life. It can also be referred to as a hypothesis of writing where the common, dull and normal aspects of life are represented in a direct manner. This straight forward manner is meant to reflect life as it is (Wilder, p.4).

Realism is well presented in the play A doll’s house and one example is the marriage between Torvald and Nora. The marriage is shown realistically for a pretense it actually is and this is pointed out by Nora at the end of the play. She explains that they have not been living a genuine partnership of shared sharing and caring but they have rather been “playing” at marriage. Their home has been portrayed as a “doll’s house “instead of a normal home, "I have existed merely to perform tricks for you, Torvald. But you wanted it like that” (Törnqvist, p.2).

The character of Torvald is portrayed realistically as his arrogance is shown together with his selfishness and authoritarianism. It is clear that his concern for his wife is not passionate and he does not take care of his wife because he loves her, "From this moment happiness is not the question; all that concerns us is to save the remains, the fragments, the appearance. He only takes care of her because he thinks of her as his inferior. In fact he does not take care of her but only controls her by working out his power all over her daily life. Realism is also shown when Mrs. Linde loses her husband and is left alone with no job and money, “my life is so dreadfully empty and I feel so forsaken. There is not the least pleasure in working for one's self. Nils, give me someone and something to work for” (Bloom, p.114).

The conclusion of the play itself is realistic as it has not specifically insisted for an unhappy conclusion. It has insisted of a conclusion that is sensible and reliable according to the circumstances. This is clearly shown when Nora leaves Torvald which is sensible with her character as she has gained self awareness. The conclusion also does not give an unexpected happy ending with Tovald and his wife falling into the arms of each other. He swears he will change at the end of the play and asks her to stay. Nora on the other hand looks reality in the face and does not agree to his promises. This is because she does not place any faith in his honesty. Nora’s leaving is also presented realistically as it is not glorified considering the hardships she will encounter (Törnqvist, p.2).

The truth is that she will be separated from her children whom she loves dearly. She will also be required to make her way in the tough world on her own. It will be difficult for her because the life she has been living has not prepared her for what she will encounter from now on. The conclusion presents very well that her future will not be easy as she will have no one to turn to or comfort her. It is also realistic that there is no magnificence or over-romanticizing in a “Doll’s house” because there will be only agonizing choices (Bloom, p.114).
















Work Cited

Wilder, Thornton, and Henrik Isben. A Doll's House. , 2016. Print.

Törnqvist, Egil. Ibsen: A Doll's House. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995. Print.

Bloom, Claire. Leaving a Doll's House: A Memoir. Boston: Little Brown, 1998. Print.

606 Words  2 Pages

Nicomachean Ethics Book VIII


Friendship according to Aristotle is Impressive and a necessity but its detailed nature is highly argued (Ross, 1999).  According to Aristotle friendship entails a mutual sensation of a good will that exists between two individuals (Ross, 1999).  Friendship exists in three kinds where the first kind is grounded on utility where the involved parties get benefits from each other.  The second friendship kind is grounded on pleasure where the individuals are brought together by pleasant qualities, good looks or there are pleasant aspects.  The third kind is grounded on goodness where the partners are in admiration of the other’s goodness and are in association in achieving greater good (Ross, 1999).

The first friendships kinds can be termed as accidental because the major aspect of influence is pleasure as well as utility and cannot be considered as essential in the context of friendship (Ross, 1999).  These forms of friendships can additionally be regarded as short-term as the needs and pleasure preferences are bound to change with time. On the other hand goodness can be termed as a quality that is enduring and may last longer (Ross, 1999).  This kind of friendship is a rare occurrence based on the fact that the connection is not generally so attractive.  This therefore justifies the argument generated by Aristotle that bad person’s forms friendships that are bounded by pleasure as well as utility while good persons are connected to provide care to each other (Ross, 1999).

According to Aristotle friendship is a consistent of exchanges that are equal but some relationships are inexistence with unequal sharing (Ross, 1999).  Most persons are in support of the tendency of being lover as loving is not favorable. This is mainly because they want to be associated with honor.  Friendship can only live when there is enough love between the involved persons (Ross, 1999).




Ross W.D. (1999).  Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Batoche Books, Kitchener.


321 Words  1 Pages

Get in Touch

If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to inform us and we will gladly take care of it.

Email us at Discounts


GET -30% OFF!



  Working. Please Wait...