Admiral Kurtz
Apocalypse Now is a film about madness. In this film, Willard, played by Charlie Sheen, is sent through madness, reminiscent of Dantes' journey through hell. His mission is to kill Kurtz, who’s gone insane according to military intelligence. Kurtz has gone on his own, starting his own society in Cambodia, where his troops and the local tribes worship him as a god. Kurtz has committed murder by waging his own ferocious, independent war against Vietnamese intelligence agents with his own native Montagnard army across the border in an ancient Cambodian temple deep in the jungle. General Corman explains the confused insanity of the war: "In this war, things get confused out there, power, ideals, the old morality, and practical military necessity." The colonel has become a self-appointed, worshipped godlike leader/dictator of a renegade native tribe. General Corman describes Kurtz's temptation to be deified: "Because there's a conflict in every human heart between the rational and the irrational, between the good and the evil. The good does not always triumph. Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. Therein, man has got a breaking point. You and I have. Walter Kurtz has reached his. And very obviously, he has gone insane." Kurtz’s motivation behind his actions is his need to feel godlike, to act without judgment.
In Kurtz' camp, a site of primitive evil, they are greeted by a crazed, hyperactive, fast-talking, spaced-out free lance photo-journalist played by Dennis Hoper. The babbling combat photographer, garlanded by his camera equipment, hopes for their sake, that they haven't come to take away Colonel Kurtz. He describes the great awe all the natives have for their jungle lord: "Out here, we're all his children." The photojournalist appears to be a fanatical follower of Kurtz, worshipping the enigmatic, genius "poet-warrior" Kurtz as a personal god and expounding Kurtz's cause: "You don't talk to the Colonel, you listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a poet-warrior in the classic sense...I'm a little man. He's a great man. I should have been a pair of ragged claws, scuttling across floors of silent seas, I mean...He can be terrible. He can be mean. And he can be right. He's fighting a war. He's a great man." He offers first-hand advice from his own experience: "Play it cool, laid back...You don't judge the Colonel." Willard is impressed by Kurtz's power over the people.
In both the film and the movie, Kurtz is portrayed as a man of great stature and mastery whose actions become questioned due his barbaric conduct. While Marlow slowly learns more and more regarding who Kurtz is and what he has done through others’ conversations, Willard educates himself about Kurtz through pictures and files he has of Kurtz. He states that he feels like he already knows a thing or two about Kurtz that are not in the papers he has, and that beyond the bridge, there is only Kurtz. This goes to show how Kurtz develops a prof...
He is was total opposite of Metternich. Mill’s “On liberty” essay was about the individual liberty. To Mill’s, the only important thing is the happiness of the individual, and such happiness may only be accomplished in an enlightened society, in which people are free to partake in their own interests. Thus, Mills stresses the important value of individuality, of personal development, both for the individual and society for future progress. For Mill, an educated person is the one who acts on what he or she understands and who does everything in his or her power to understand. Mill held this model out to all people, not just the specially gifted, and advocates individual initiative over social control. He emphasizes that things done by individuals are done better than those done by governments. Also, individual action advances the mental education of that individual, something that government action cannot ever do, and for government action always poses a threat to liberty and must be carefully
Nevertheless, while Utilitarianism is the key approach of Mill's politics, in On Liberty, Mill's ideal of utility departs from this discourse by disregarding the concept of natural rights. As mentioned earlier, individuality derives from personal development and self-realisation, 'grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive beings' (Mill, [1859] 2009, p.20), and this is the true utility of individuality. Thus, 'higher pleasures' (intellectual and moral) are valued more than base pleasures (physical or emotional), contributing to the society, and producing higher forms of happiness. In this sense, Mill 'left the true utilitarian spirit far behind' (Berkowitz, 200, p.148). Within his model, utility no longer accepts 'lower pleasures', embracing the most virtuous principles of individuality and liberty of
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.
For Mill, the freedom that enables each individual to explore his or her own particular way of life is essential for a generous and diverse development of humanity. The only source of potential within society to further continue human development is the spontaneity or creativity that lies within each individual. Mill has a utilitarian view on freedom. He was especially keen on individual liberty because it allowed the greatest measure of happiness. His concern is not to declare liberty as a natural right but to rather set out the appropriate constraints within ‘Civil or Social liberty’. Civil liberty is defined as the limit society can exert its legitimate power over each individual and social liberty has much to do with a political principle
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle … The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own.
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
John Stuart Mill was one of the most influential Western philosopher. At the time, most Western philosophers had the tendency to look down on women. They believed that women are too emotional and are incapable of being rational. However, Mill was an exception to this as he was an advocate for gender equality (Utilitarian Ethics). He is also known for his work in Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequence of an action and whether that action benefit a greater number of people (Utilitarian Ethics).
Cahn, Steven M., and Peter J. Markie. "John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism; Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is." 2009. Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. 4th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. 330-41. Print.
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
Kurtz was the chief of the Inner Station, where he was in charge of a very important ivory-trading post. Marlow learns that because of Kurtz’s ability to obtain more ivory than anybody else, he is of “greatest importance to the Company” and is to become a “somebody in the Administration” (Conrad 143). However, a critical aspect is the way in which he went about his business, as it was ruthless and selfish, characteristics that go hand-in-hand with European colonization.
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.