More handpicked essays just for you.
King Arthur and The Knights of The Round Table - The Quest of the Holy Grail LEGEND
The epic of king arthur and the knights of the round table
King arthur and the round table research paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The moral of Lanval could be a theme of virtues consisting of loyalty and justice, but it could also be seen as a test of Lanval's loyalty to Queen Semiramis. It is likely that Lanval would have been found innocent since the attendants who arrived before Queen Semiramis were indeed superior in beauty to Queen Guinevere. Lanval, however, would rather die than betray his beloved in this way, which might be what leads her to save him. One could say that the moral of this story is loyalty and justice will always prevail over betrayal and prejudice.
Lanval was already discouraged with the fact that no one gave him the recognition he thought he deserved for being the knight he believed to be. With Lanval allowing his horse to run away and choosing to go after women rather than his horse showed he actually gave up on his knighthood, which would soon make him seem less of a man to the queen as she was rejected by Lanval. He was meant to show the world he was this strong dedicated knight to only chase after a women no one has met to only now causes him more trouble later on within the story. Not only was he first questioned about his knighthood but now he is being questions of his masculinity. Lanval chancing after this mystery women not only allowed him to grow a bigger heart for this unknown women but also made him vulnerable to everyone else around him soon making him face trial for accusations that were truly false. Being a knight, has many traits such as loyalty and dedication, one would think him abandoning his horse, therefore knighthood, would make him lose these characteristics. However, the horse didn't know him have these characteristic, the knighthood like traits were already apart of him, and the abandonment of the horse was simply him leaving what was once his whole world to only start a whole new
Every natural instinct of survival, for both animals and humans, is evil. According to the paradigm of our society, it is immoral to be selfish, to steal, to feel empathy only for your kin and apathy for everyone else, and to kill for personal gain. On the contrary, according to the natural instincts followed by all of the animal kingdom, you are to insure your own and your pack’s own survival, no matter the cost, disregarding all others; to steal, to feel apathy for other groups, and to kill for power and personal gain are all common practices that animals do in nature without the bat of an eye. These instincts do not only apply to lesser animals, but humans share them as well, for we are animals like all the others. There are no morals
Years before I become a Christian, I was convinced that the Christian God was not good, and could not possibly exist on account of it. I remember, very clearly, saying to a friend of mine, “if God loves his children so much, how could he send them to hell?” I could not comprehend there being that kind of darkness within the world. I could not wrap my mind around hell, or the fact that mankind could have done anything to deserve such a fate. Some recent comments by atheist and agnostic friends of mine are echoes of my past thoughts: “People who don’t hear the gospel go to hell? That’s just not fair,” along with, “if God is real, then he must be evil, because the world is so screwed up.” It is hard for people to reconcile a perfectly good God
When we discuss morality we know that it is a code of values that seem to guide our choices and actions. Choices and actions play a significant role in determining the purpose and course of a person’s life. In the case of “Jim and the Indians”, Jim faces a terrible dilemma to which any solution is morbid. On one hand, Jim can choose to ignore the captain’s suggestion and let the whole group of Indians be executed. Alternatively, he may decide upon sacrificing one Indian for the sake of saving the rest. Both options involve taking of person’s life. Regarding what should Jim do in this circumstance, there are two approaches according for Jim’s dilemma that should be examined. By looking into the Deontological moral theory and the moral theory of Consequentialism we can see what determines an action that is morally required.
It must be said that facts, which could give the answer to those questions were scattered all around the text. For instance, a phrase like “The man who gets her will be lucky. No one could find a nicer girl than that” and “such was the charm of her person” is perceived in a different way if to reread the story (De Maupassant 90). At first, one might suggest that future Mrs. Lantin was indeed a woman with high moral standards, but after considering her expensive possessions one could not help to conclude that she lied to her husband from the very beginning and all six years of their happy family life were not that “ideal” after all (De Maupassant 90). She was not that “young girl” who “seemed to be very ideal of that pure good woman to whom every young man dreams of entrusting his future” (De Maupassant 90).
“The sanctity of the oath” (Keillor 102), the controversial hot topic of this year. This is a subject that has sparked great debates not only to those in Congress, but among the American people as well. Some hold the oath as a promise of civility and humanity. On the other hand, others view the morality the oath is supposed to stand for as unreachable and unattainable. In my opinion Garrison Keillor sums it up in his essay, “The Republicans Were Right, But.” I feel this is a good essay based upon the author’s argument of morality, his use of symbolism, and the entire structure of the essay.
Morality is defined as “neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Moral relativism suggests that when it comes to questions about morality, there is no absolute right and wrong. Relativists argue that there can be situations in which certain behavior that would generally be considered “wrong” can also be considered “right”. The most prominent argument for moral relativism was posed by a foremost American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who claimed that absolute morality does not exist because cultures and individuals disagree on moral issues and because of these differences, morality cannot be objective (Benedict). For example, in the United
The second reason to act morally is because there is religion. Sometimes moral codes are obtained by theologians who clarify holy books, like the Bible in Christianity, the Torah in Judaism, and the Qur 'an in Islam. Their conclusions are often accepted as absolute by their believers. Those who believe in God view him as the supreme law giver; a God to whom we owe obedience and allegiance. In other words, they think that being a good person is one who obey god by following his commandments. Religion helps people to judge whether a certain act is good or bad, which can be considered as the definition of morality. Most religions promote the same values which are: fairness, loyalty, honesty, trust, etc.... Similarly, McGinn lists the same qualities
James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
" Under a Ramshackle Rainbow", is a very deep poem in which the poet uses dark
Morality can be described as standards of the ideal man, or a law striving for perfection in humans (Spencer, H 1892). Francesca Gino and Cassie Mogilner in their 2013 experiment tested and proved a theory that priming money and time will cause differences in moral attitude. Looking further into this experiment it could be argued that it was not time or money in itself that caused a change in moral behavior, but time and money subconsciously caused a change in self-reflection which influenced ethical behavior. Thus Gino and Mogilner (2013) effectively proved a link between an indirect, yet consistent, link between time, money and morality. By use of imagination it can be deduced that this information could be beneficial in manipulating or even exposing ethical and moral behavior in society, including the possibility of increasing self-awareness to extract ideal behaviours in civilisation.
The ability to interpret the morally correct (morally good) resolution to a moral, when confronted by a moral dilemma, can be a very difficult task. Ethics is the search for universal objective principles for evaluating human behavior, good or bad. In societies, ethics are developed by their religious beliefs, government, and through experience. Social ethics serve as the premise for morality. Humans through ethics create morality, a personal or social code of conduct. The principles for one's morality are founded by the ethical standards of their society. Through experience, education, religion, and morality humans develop morals based on social and religious ethics. Morals give humans the ability to distinguish the morally right/good decision to make when confronted with a moral dilemma. However, in some instances we are confronted with a morally problematic situation in which it is difficult to distinguish the morally correct solution. For example, we'll consider the morally problematic situation faced by the Smith's. The Smith family is like any average, American, middle-class family of Catholic faith. One night Jim, the Smith's eldest son who had jus graduated from college, went out to a bar for a friend's birthday. Later, in the morning hours, Jim decides that he should go home. Jim decides to drive home even though he was very intoxicated. On his way home Jim runs a red light proceeding to smash into a car, instantly killing the driver. Jim leaves the scene, of which there were no witnesses, and hurries home. His parents tell him to stay at the house while they attempt to resolve and analyze the situation. The next day, a couple of police officers arrive at the house and ques...
According to Aristotle’s definition of happiness, in order to flourish or live well one must be morally virtuous. Aristotle says, “Virtue, then, is a state that decides consisting in a mean, the mean relative to us…It is a mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency” (1107a 1-2). Aristotle suggests that virtue of magnificence is necessary to live a happy life. Aristotle describes magnificence as dependent on wealth. Specifically, he says that “magnificence is expenditure that is fitting in its large scale” (112b 2).
Moral degradation is a necessary evil in order to survive through war; therefore, construction of a new morality is inescapable. Within the stories in The Things They Carried, soldiers are required to do so during and after the Vietnam War. War breeds monstrosities and wanton cruelty. When faced with two evils, picking the lesser immoral option is not necessarily something to be frowned upon. This is what separates a soldier’s morality and a civilian’s morality. Civilians see things through a black-and-white perspective; fundamental standards that must be obeyed to the letter. Aggressive behavior (e.g. homicide, robbery, extortion, and so forth) is continually censured and punished accordingly through a fair and just system. There is no such
Aristotle argues that being happy is also being good. Once you have achieved happiness that is the end, and because it is something final it should be where all actions aim. Aristotle says that this is a truism, meaning that of course we should always aim to be happy because it is supreme good. The idea behind this links back to virtue and why being virtuous leads to happiness. Each individual has different abilities and skills which will lead to their own specific type of happiness. Happiness does not come in the same form for everybody, but ultimately when one is excellent at what they do, they will achieve happiness. In this paper, I will explain why the virtuous life is the equivalent of the happy life.