Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reasons why people engage in criminal behaviour
Essays on problems of superstition
Essays on problems of superstition
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reasons why people engage in criminal behaviour
Rational Irrationality
“He (the magistrate) said it was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would become meaningless”(69). This quote from The Stranger, by Albert Camus, expresses the notion of establishing logical reasons for the wrongdoings of others, when such reasons do not exist. One can see that society often judges people in a rational manner in the presence of an irrational event or purpose, basing their judgements on a single object or idea. In society, people often follow superstitions and beliefs that have developed permanently in the minds of ‘ordinary’ human beings while expecting everyone else to do the same. In the previous quote, the reader can see that the magistrate has developed a conclusion that all criminals, even Muersault, have committed crimes due to their
…show more content…
He repeatedly asks Muersault if he believes in God, while Muersault’s reply remains a simple “No”. The magistrate has restricted his mind to faith in God and has based every circumstance to that standard of belief. Without it, there is no possible justification for any given crime or event. During their conversation, the Magistrate asks Muersault specific questions in search for regret and tears of forgiveness from God, but in this particular case, he receives none, leaving him in confusion and desperation for any sign of remorse. For example: “He simply asked…if I was sorry for what I had done. I thought about it for a minute and said that more than sorry I felt kind of annoyed…he didn’t understand”(70). Due to this mindset, the magistrate doesn’t understand Muersault’s feeling of annoyance. He couldn't grasp that Muersault sees this situation as
Chapter 6 of part I of The Stranger concluded with Meursault’s conscious decision to shoot an Arab because of the physical discomfort the Arab’s knife caused him. The significance of the ending of part I is that it was the first demonstration of Meursault’s awareness of the possible consequences of the act that he committed. This awareness continues into the second part of the novel as he is arrested and trialed. The reason for Meursault’s trial is the murder of the Arab. His insensitivity towards Maman’s death and lack of a social conscientious are factors that contributed to support further investigations, but are not reasons to trial him because they have not ‘harmed’ society on a way that he could be arrested for. For example, if Meursault
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
This passage is set before Meursault’s execution with the chaplain entering the scene, and telling Meursault that his “heart is blind”, leading to Meursault to yell and delve into his rant, and moment of consciousness. The passage has a calm in the beginning as if Meursault catches his breath from yelling previously, and he starts to reassure himself that he is not wrong for expressing his views as it went against the public’s religious beliefs, and states that this moment was so important to him that it was if his life was merely leading up to it. Why this particular scene is important to Meursault is that this is an instance where he successfully detaches himself from the world, and begins to deconstruct the world’s ideals as his rant shifts on to focusing on how nothing in life mattered. Meursault describes his gripes with the chaplain’s words as he explains his reasoning as to why the concept of a god is flawed as Meursault saw that everyone was inherently the same, with equal privileges just how often people could express them separated them. The passage continues with Meursault arguing that everyone would be faced with judgment or punishment one day, and explains why his own situation was not significant as it was no different. After that explanation the passage ends with Meursault posing the concept of everything in the world being equal both in wrongdoing and life in general, evident in his example of saying “Sala¬mano's dog was worth just as much as his wife.” Although the passage shows Meursault challenging the ethics and morals that the world around him follows, it does have instances like the end in which we see that the rant is still expression of Meursault's complex emotions, as it is unclear whether it is fear or a...
However, upon deciding to kill a man, he quickly learns that his previous unconcern will not diminish the consequences for his deed. Put to death, Meursault remains stagnant on his opinion of justice, refusing to ever consider that justice possesses any worth. Upon receiving a visit from a chaplain hours before his execution, he merely uttered “I had been right, I was still right, I was always right” (Camus 121) Meursault did not understand why the chaplain wanted to force him to turn to God and gain a moral sense about life. Thus he simply reiterated the motto that he lived by: an apathetic, self-absorbed idea that nothing in life means anything. Meursault’s continual refusal to accept the moral standards of the world prohibited him from every truly finding a true sense of
In Western society and culture, religion and morality have often intertwined and they have reflected their values onto each other. Today it is sometimes impossible to make a distinction between the two, since their influence has transcended generations. In modern Western culture, religion and society preach conformity. In order to be a “good” person, one must conform to the values imposed by the church1 and state.
Stanley Milgram’s experiment shows that people many times conform to do what an authority figure says or orders. Despite moral apprehensions, a person might continue to do what they know is wrong. Milgram used ordinary people of all different types of life in his experiment and showed that many of them will continue until they are told to stop. It is not a “lunatic fringe” that will go against what is morally right, but it is a majority that will. Milgram says that it is easier going against one’s own principles then disobeying an authoritative figure.
Human beings’ belief systems don’t always work according to evidence. Belief is made up of
As long as civilized societies have existed, hypocrisy and discrimination have been an unassailable piece of each of them. A punishment for an offense has always been determined by the severity of the action, which inherently depends on the culture of the people. However, the presence of some level of judgement of others has remained inevitable. Many would like to ask the question “Why does this feeling of entitlement to pass judgement exist when everything is subjective to each person’s own morals?” One might ponder that very enigmatic phenomenon. However, this essay will focus on why and how a person should overcome the inevitable mistakes they will make in their lifetime. The word itself seems much too cliche, but as these literary
Throughout history many things have happened that were by many thought to be unconscionable. Yet, the people who were putting their mark of unacceptance upon those committing these thought to be deplorable acts, were unaware of the actual situations, and in many cases, committing the same acts themselves. This was true during the Holy Wars, the Crusades and similar events. People who were not involved, often thought these acts of inhumanity to be reprehensible, but the parties involved, in their minds, had just cause
Some people think that the religion is God-given and flexible for all times, but the other see it as traditions that change with time. Folkways can change to mores which are habits and traditions that are used to make moral judgments. Sumner believes that sometimes mores and folkways can be harmful and dangerous (24). Therefore, a person may think that what was right for ancestors may not be right these days now. Thus, most religions’ main goal is advocating to have good morals. Some believers feel that to have morals, they should follow their religion’s commandments. Additionally, thinking that there is an afterlife, which is the Day of Judgment and heaven and hell, morality becomes more desirable. Some religions teach that this life, which we are living right now, is nothing but a test for your morals and how much you successfully followed the required commandants. A person is evaluated by his actions and they are ones that determine one’s place in heaven or hell in the afterlife. As a result, people act morally for the benefit of their
...be taken to the extent of life or death due to the importance religion has in one’s life. The use of secrets to protect harmful truths or opposing powers that create harm the prestige of a religion is also a common action that is believed to be necessary to keep balance within a community. The constant influential attributes that religion possess can dictate the actions that somebody with perform. It is viewed solely as a positive system that creates peace between beings, however religion obtains negative factors that also negatively influence believers. People tend to turn to religion as the answer for the unknown as well as allowing it to dictate the majority of aspects in a human’s life. This prevents people from deciding their own unique path in life and disabling them from further educating themselves about available answers to questions they are unaware of.
The trial portrays the absurdist ideal that absolute truth does not exist. This ideal destroys the very purpose of the trial, which seeks to place a rational explanation on Meursault’s senseless killing of the Arab. However, because there is no rational explanation for Meursault’s murder, the defense and prosecution merely end up constructing their own explanations. They each declare their statements to be the truth, but are all based on false assumptions. The prosecution itself is viewed as absurd. The prosecutor tries to persuade the jury that Meursault has no feelings or morals by asking Perez if “he had at least seen [Meursault] cry” (91). The prosecutor then continues to turn the crowd against Meursault when he asks him about his “liaison” with Marie right after his mother’s death. Though Meursault’s relationship with Marie and his lack of emotions at his mother’s funeral may seem unrelated to his murder, the prosecutor still manages to convince the crowd that they are connected to one another. The jury ends up convicting Meursault not because he killed a man, but because he didn't show the proper emotions after his mother ...
This theory concludes that during the level of conventional reasoning, an individual bases their moral reasoning off of the rules and expectations of those they deem to have authority (Arnett, 2015, p. 382). I find that this theory applies to the observation of this adolescent as she was brought to this religious gathering by her mother and engaged in activities as expected by those who ran the event. During this observation period, she was reluctant to engage in activity congruent with morals and religion, until prompted by those around her. This act of conformity, in addition to being dropped off at this gathering by her mother shows that the authority of others in religious and moral practice respectfully. As morals are key to religious practices, it can be concluded that the influence of authority on religious practice is also present in that of her
The Stranger by Albert Camus focuses largely on the concept of absurdism. Camus uses family and personal relationships, or the lack of it thereof, to show the isolation that the main character, Meursault, undergoes in the novel and it’s effect on him overall. Camus utilizes the protagonists’ character development as a tool to further his plot of the novel. The absence of family and personal relationships tied in with the particular recurring topics of the novel are crucial in both the development of the protagonists’ characters as well as the plot as it affects the portrayal of the main character.
The belief that morality requires God remains a widely held moral maxim. In particular, it serves as the basic assumption of the Christian fundamentalist's social theory. Fundamentalists claim that all of society's troubles - everything from AIDS to out-of-wedlock pregnancies - are the result of a breakdown in morality and that this breakdown is due to a decline in the belief of God. This paper will look at different examples of how a god could be a bad thing and show that humans can create rules and morals all on their own. It will also touch upon the fact that doing good for the wrong reasons can also be a bad thing for the person.