Tuesday, March 17, 2020
Moral Courage of Benedict Arnold
Moral Courage of Benedict Arnold It is often said that it is easy to find moral courage in various individuals that have been celebrated for their actions throughout history yet it is far harder and a lot more interesting to try to find moral courage in historical figures that have been vilified for their actions and treated as cowards.Advertising We will write a custom article sample on Moral Courage of Benedict Arnold specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In the history of choices and the way in which they leave an indelible mark by which a person is judged the decision of betrayal made by Benedict Arnold has forever marked him in infamy as a traitor to the American Revolution and the measure by which future traitors are compared to (Evisum, 1). While history has marked him a traitor to America Benedict Arnold was actually a revolutionary hero before he became traitor. His actions at the Battle of Valcour Island, the Battle of Ridgefield and the Battle of Saratoga contr ibuted immensely towards ensuring the survival of the revolution. Unfortunately, despite his successes at the battlefield he was repeatedly passed over for promotion and was accused numerous times by political and military opponents of corruption. Despite these accusations Arnold continued to faithfully serve the early Continental Congress and was actually one of the cornerstones of the revolutionary effort as indicated by various historical records and historians alike. It must be noted that even though he had contributed vast sums to the war effort the early Continental Congress accused him of owing them money (Evisum, 1). From these events it can be seen that initially, Arnold displayed courage, conviction and utter selflessness risking his life numerous times and nearly driving himself to bankruptcy in order to liberate the original 13 colonies from British rule. As a result of all these allegations in spite of his efforts to help win the war Arnold became disenchanted and turne d traitor to the revolution. Under the theory of utilitarianism the moral worth of a perceived action is actually reliant on its resulting outcome. This means that the overall usefulness of a particular action is dependent on the resulting positive utility created and the reduction in negative utility. In the case of Benedict Arnold his contributions helped to ensure the success of the revolution yet the resulting outcome has him betraying his nation due to the maltreatment he suffered under their hands. American historians do agree that if it was not for the actions of Benedict Arnold the American Revolution would not have succeeded. Under the theory of utilitarianism the maximizing utility that was initially created was the contribution of Arnold towards the liberation of America under British rule.Advertising Looking for article on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More As such, his actions could be considere d as being morally courageous in the face of possible negative circumstances. His subsequent betrayal of the American people on the other hand can actually be explained by two concepts namely the theory of egoism and the psychological humanist theory under Maslow. Under the theory of egoism it is expressly stated that people are moral agents that should accomplish actions that are in their own self-interests. In a way the theory assumes that since people are moral agents they will not pursue lines of behavior that will negatively affect the well being of other people but rather enhances ones own well being through self-action. In the case of Benedict Arnold his betrayal of the American Revolution was a direct result of the maltreatment he received at their hands, a facet of information conveniently left out in most historical text known to the general public. As such in order to pursue an action that would be to his own well-being he would choose to leave those who maltreated him an d join those who promised to treat him better. Records do show that after the war was over Benedict Arnold was treated rather well by the British government and as such his pursuit of ethical egoism where the self is put first before others was a success. The humanist theory on the other hand takes a different approach to interpreting the actions of Arnold. According to the humanist theory, human behavior is motivated to achieve the so called â€Å"maximum potential†of the self and as such people will always attempt to reach this maximum potential unless they are hindered by obstacles (Hefner Media Group, 1). The best way of explaining the actions of Arnold would be to use Maslows pyramid of the hierarchy of needs. Maslow suggests that all humans have specific needs which they try to meet which come in a certain hierarchical order. It can be assumed that after the war was over Arnold planned to return to his life as a merchant yet with the accusations hurled against him and his supposed debt to Congress this would not be feasible. Here the obstacles to Arnold meeting his needs under Maslow’s pyramid are the debts he has to congress and the accusations against him (Hefner Media Group, 1). For him to continue to achieve his maximum potential he would need to overcome these obstacles and as a result he chose to betray the revolution and join the British which did result in him gaining enough money to become a merchant again. Care ethics on the other hand does not support the actions of Arnold, while it may be true that he contributed to the war the fact remains that once he betrayed the nation his knowledge of the tactics and stratagems of the various military commanders actually cost several men their lives.Advertising We will write a custom article sample on Moral Courage of Benedict Arnold specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The fact is care ethics focuses on the interdependence of individuals and v ulnerability some individuals have over the course of actions of others. It is a theory that helps to determine whether the course of action a person took was right or wrong. In the case of Benedict Arnold, though he may have helped defend the nation early on the fact remains that his actions later on in the course of the war resulted in hundreds of deaths and as such under the theory of care ethics his actions are condemned. The theories of intuition, Divine Command, Kant, and Ross come into play in this particular study when examining the legality, morality and ethicality behind the reasons of particular actions. In the case of Benedict Arnold his actions were in a way illegal and unethical due to the violation in trust that the American public at the time had placed in him. It must be noted though that unethical and immoral types of behavior were first done against him by his opponents in the continental congress before he even tried to betray the American people. His actions, im moral and unethical as they may be, are nothing more than the result of him rebelling against the continued slander and torment that was hurled against him. The most useful theory in identifying the reasoning behind the actions of Arnold would be that of Consequentialism and its judgment that a morally right act would have the consequence of producing a morally right result and vice versa. In the case of Arnold his self sacrifice on the battlefield resulted in numerous victories for the early army of the U.S. It has been clearly stated that if Arnold had not joined the revolution at the time it would have been likely that the original 13 colonies would have lost the war. As such his morally right action produced a good result in the form of America winning the war. Arnolds betrayal could actually be considered the result of consequentialism as well since it was the immoral and unethical actions of the continental congress against Arnold that caused him to betray them in the first pl ace. Though it may be somewhat morbid the best lesson that can be learned from examination of Benedict Arnold is that no matter how strong your ethical conviction is everyone has a tipping point. From being one of the revolutions greatest heroes to becoming one of its most hated villains Arnold initially did try to stay true to his ethical convictions. Unfortunately the utterly contemptible manner in which he was treated despite his efforts resulted in him being disgusted over what the revolution was about resulting in him abandoning their cause.Advertising Looking for article on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More References Evisum. Benedict Arnold. (2000). pg.1. Retrieved from https://www.benedictarnold.org/ Hefner Media Group. Personality Synopsis. Allpsychonline (2004). pg. 1.Retrieved from http://allpsych.com/personalitysynopsis/murray/
Sunday, March 1, 2020
Existentialism - Essay Topics
Existentialism - Essay Topics If you are studying existentialism and have an exam coming up, the best way to prepare for it is to write lots of practice essays. Doing this helps you to recall the texts and the ideas you have studied; it helps you to organize your knowledge of these; and it often triggers original or critical insights of your own. Here are a set of essay questions you can use. They relate to the following classic existentialist texts:  Tolstoy, My Confession Tolstoy, The Death of Ivan Ilyich Dostoyevsky, Notes from Underground Dostoyevsky, The Grand Inquisitor Nietzsche, The Gay Science Beckett, Waiting for Godot Sartre, The Wall Sartre, Nausea Sartre, Existentialism as a Humanism Sartre, â€Å"Portrait of an Anti-Semite†Kafka, A Message from the Emperor, A Little Fable, Couriers, Before the Law Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus Camus The Stranger  Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky Both Tolstoys Confession and Dostoyevskys Notes from Underground seem to reject science and rationalistic philosophy. Why? Explain and evaluate the reasons for the critical attitudes toward science in these two texts.  Both Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilyich (at least once he falls sick) and Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man feel estranged from the people around them. Why? In what ways is the kind of isolation they experience similar, and in what ways is it different?  The underground man says that ‘to be too conscious is an illness.’ What does he mean? What are his reasons? In what ways does the underground man suffer from excessive consciousness? Do you see this as the root cause of his sufferings or are there deeper problems that give rise to it? Does Ivan Ilyich also suffer from excessive consciousness, or is his problem something different?  Both The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Notes From Underground portray individuals who feel separated from their society. Is the isolation they experience avoidable, or is it primarily caused by the sort of society they belong to.  In the Authors Note at the beginning of Notes from Underground, the author describes the underground man as representative of a new type of person that must inevitably appear in modern society. What aspects of the character are representative of this new type of modern individual? Does he remain representative today in 21st century America, or has his type more or less disappeared?  Contrast what Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor says about freedom with what the Underground Man says about it. Whose views do you most agree with?  Nietzsche, The Gay Science Tolstoy (in Confession), Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man, and Nietzsche in The Gay Science, are all critical of those who think the main goal in life should be the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Why?  When Nietzsche read Notes from Underground he immediately hailed Dostoyevsky as a ’kindred spirit’. Why?  In The Gay Science, Nietzsche says: â€Å"Life- that is: being cruel and inexorable against everything about us that is growing old and weak†¦.being without reverence for those who are dying, who are wretched, who are ancient.   Explain, giving illustrative examples, what you think he means and why he says this. Do you agree with him?  At the beginning of Book IV of The Gay Science, Nietzsche says all in all and on the whole: some day I wish only to be a Yes-sayer. Explain what he means- and what he is opposing himself toby reference to issues he discusses elsewhere in the work. How successful is he in maintaining this life-affirming stance?  Morality is herd instinct in the individual. What does Nietzsche mean by this? How does this statement fit in with the way he views conventional morality and his own alternative values?  Explain in detail Nietzsche’s view of Christianity. What aspects of Western civilization, both positive and negative, does he see as largely due to its influence?  In The Gay Science Nietzsche says: â€Å"The strongest and most evil spirits have so far done the most to advance humanity.† Explain, giving examples, what you think he means and why he says this. Do you agree with him?  In The Gay Science Nietzsche seems to both criticize moralists who distrust the passions and instincts and also himself be a great advocate of self-control. Can these two aspects of his thinking be reconciled? If so, how?  What is Nietzsche’s attitude in The Gay Science towards the quest for truth and knowledge? Is it something heroic and admirable, or should it be viewed with suspicion as a hangover from traditional morality and religion?  Sartre Sartre famously observed that man is condemned to be free.  He also wrote that man is a futile passion. Explain what these statements mean and the reasoning that lies behind them. Would you describe the conception of humanity that emerges as optimistic or pessimistic?  Sartre’s existentialism was labeled by one critic â€Å"the philosophy of the graveyard,†and existentialism strikes many as dominated by depressing ideas and outlooks. Why would someone think this? And why might others disagree? In Sartre’s thinking which tendencies do you see as depressing and which uplifting or inspiring?  In his Portrait of the anti-Semite, Sartre says the anti-Semite feels the nostalgia of impermeability. What does this mean? How does it help us understand anti-Semitism? Where else in Sartres writings is this tendency examined?  The climax of Sartres novel Nausea is Roquentins revelation in the park when he contemplates.  What is the nature of this revelation? Should it be described as a form of enlightenment?  Explain and discuss either Anny’s ideas about ‘perfect moments’ or Roquentin’s ideas about ‘adventures (or both). How do these notions relate to the major themes explored in Nausea?  It has been said that Nausea presents the world as it appears to one who experiences at a deep level what Nietzsche described as the death of God. What supports this interpretation? Do you agree with it?  Explain what Sartre means when he says that we make our decisions and perform our actions in anguish, abandonment and despair. Do you find his reasons for viewing human action in this way convincing? [In answering this question, make sure you consider Sartrean texts beyond just his lecture Existentialism and Humanism]  At one point in Nausea, Roquentin says, â€Å"Beware of literature!† What does he mean? Why does he say this?  Kafka, Camus, Beckett Kafkas stories and parables have often praised for capturing certain aspects of the human condition in the modern age. With reference to the parables we discussed in class, explain which features of modernity Kafka illuminates and what insights, if any, he has to offer.  At the end of ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ Camus says that ‘one must imagine Sisyphus happy’? Why does he say this? Wherein lies Sisyphus’ happiness? Does Camus’ conclusion follow logically from the rest of the essay? How plausible do you find this conclusion?  Is Meursault. the protagonist of The Stranger, an example of what Camus calls in ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ an ‘absurd hero’? Justify your answer with close reference to both the novel and the essay.  Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot, is- obviously- about waiting. But Vladimir and Estragon wait in different way and with different attitudes. How do their ways of waiting express different possible responses to their situation and, by implication, to what Beckett sees as the human condition?  Existentialism in general ‘The important thing is not to be cured but to live with one’s ailments’ (Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus). Discuss this statement with reference to at least three of the following works:                       The Myth of Sisyphus                       The Gay Science                        Notes from Underground                        Nausea                       Waiting for Godot Do the works in question illustrate, support, or criticize the outlook expressed in Camus statement?  From Tolstoys account of his suicidal despair in his Confession to Becketts Waiting for Godot, there is much in existentialist writing that seems to offer a bleak view of the human condition. On the basis of the texts you have studied, would you say that existentialism is indeed, a bleak philosophy, excessively concerned with mortality and meaninglessness? Or does it have a positive aspect also?  According to William Barrett existentialism belongs to a longstanding tradition of intense, passionate reflection on life and the human condition, yet it is also in some ways an essentially modern phenomenon.  What is it about the modern world that has given rise to existentialism?  And what aspects of existentialism are particularly modern?  Related links Life of Jean Paul Sartre Sartre - Quotations Sartres terminology Sartres concept of bad faith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)