Ethics

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein illustrates how cruelty in a person’s life can shape them more than their biology. In literary works, cruelty often functions as a crucial motivation for a major social or political factor. In Frankenstein, acts of cruelty are important not only because they illustrate the theme of how how destructive and fearful man can be, but also how under the microscope of utilitarianism and Kantian deontology, the act of abusing another being can be justified or seen as barbaric. The rejection of Frankenstein’s as a whole underscores how cruelty can stem from fear.

Throughout the novel, society rejects the monster because of fear. First his creator abandons him, then the De Laceys beat him with a stick and chase him away, then in the woods after saving a girl, he is shot. Society’s fear of the abnormal causes them to shun an innocent being who is still trying to learn how the world works. These acts show how society is so afraid of what they don’t understand, that they are willing to be cruel to the abnormality in question. As soon as society realizes that Frankenstein’s monster was not like everyone else, they strip him of the kindness, acceptance that the rest of society receives. Not even his creator, Victor Frankenstein himself, will acknowledge his emotions, thinking that he is incapable of feeling. This once again highlights how if the majority considers you not “normal”, you will not be accepted.

The murders of William, Henry, and Elizabeth show how cruelty can be used as a form of revenge. All three murders are committed to give Frankenstein the same amount of loneliness and isolation that Frankenstein has given his monster. After being rejected and isolated from society, Frankenstein’s monster wants his creator to feel the same sense of loneliness that he has felt for years. Without William, Henry, his father, and Elizabeth, Frankenstein is without friends, family, and love. This act of revenge highlights how cruelty as an act of vengeance brings out the destructive nature that everyone contains.

It reveals how the monster is capable of feeling complex emotions such as jealousy, neglect, and betrayal enough to want to get revenge. These primal yet complicated, biological feelings show just how human the monster has become and how he has developed from a naive underling to a vengeful being. Frankenstein commits an unforgivable act of cruelty as he crushes all of his creation’s hopes and dreams right in front of him. The monster comes to Frankenstein to ask him a favor, despite the fact that he killed both his friend and brother. The monster knows that he will never gain the acceptance of society, so he calls upon Frankenstein to create another monster to be his companion. Frankenstein agrees, but then is consumed with a blinding fury and breaks the glass holding the monster’s last chance at companionship. Frankenstein goes back on his promise when he realizes that in his hands, he has the monster’s one desire and can take that away just as easily as the monster took away his friend and brother.

This act of cruelty highlights Frankenstein’s grief, how he wants to avenge Henry and William, and wants to hurt the same thing that hurt him and in the same manner. Frankenstein’s monster was born as a clean slate, knowing nothing about our world or how it works. As soon as he was brought into this world, the monster was shunned and labeled as a deformity that should be punished for consequences that he had no control of. The monster did not have access to the option of choosing what he would look like; he didn’t choose to look like odds and ends of different people that could not form a normal human being.

Although he was made with an adult physique, the monster did not have access to adult level intelligence. Biologically, the monster was a completely clean slate. He couldn’t walk, speak, or read, let alone use critical thinking skills to form his own decisions. Frankenstein’s monster needed a guide in life to help him define right and wrong since he was not created with a moral compass already installed into him. The social interactions that the monster had with others would determine what is good or bad, just or unjust, and what he believes.

Victor Frankenstein’s treatment of his monster lands in a very gray area and can be defined as morally correct when taking a utilitarian viewpoint and as morally incorrect when viewing it from a Kantian deontology perspective. When taking on a utilitarian viewpoint, Frankenstein’s actions are justified since the consequences of his actions are favorable. An example is when he tries to hide his creation and later goes back on his promise to create a companion for it. Frankenstein tries to act in the name of the greater good by hiding his monster because he knows that the world isn’t ready yet.

When he destroys the monster’s last hope of friendship and love, he is saving the world from another blemish on society’s pretty front. The world cannot handle one freak of nature, so why would Frankenstein create another? However, if you take on a Kantian deontology perspective, you will find that Frankenstein was not morally correct. Kantian deontology is all about the thinking behind the action and not the consequences that follow. Frankenstein wanted to get rid of his monster because he was ashamed of how it turned out. Yes he had created life, but it was hideous and could not be shown to the world.

He wanted to save his own reputation and not flaunt his mistake. When Frankenstein erases his monster’s last hope of a connection with someone, he does it out of hate and vengefulness, not because he wanted to save his little village. He wanted to hurt his monster, and revenge became his motivation.

Even though the consequences turned out okay, it doesn’t change the fact that Frankenstein wanted to deliberately hurt his creation. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, acts of cruelty are important not only because they illustrate the theme of how how destructive and fearful man can be, but also reveals how each perpetrator doesn’t mind being cruel. The murders of William, Henry, and Elizabeth show how cruelty can be used as a form of revenge. The rejection of Frankenstein’s as a whole underscores how cruelty can stem from fear. Frankenstein commits an unforgivable act of cruelty as he crushes all of his creation’s hopes and dreams right in front of him. Each social interaction shapes the monster more than his biology ever does. The treatment that he is given is then repeated by the monster himself when he wants to hurt others. Victor Frankenstein’s conduct can be seen as actions towards the greater good and that he should be praised, and has abusive steps towards his monster’s ultimate punishment of eternal loneliness.

Legal behaviors are following laws which are written, stated and expected to be followed by people of that region for legal purposes while ethics are unwritten morals rules which differ from person to person and even between cultures. Few of the behaviors which are considered illegal but are though as ethical such as jaywalking, cheating taxes and driving over the speed limit. Although most people don’t consider them as significantly as huge crimes or particularly immoral when compared to other offenses, even though they are not so significant crimes they are considers as crimes nonetheless in the eyes of the law. The acts which can be devoted can also don’t have any victim and may not be traceable to the person that dedicated them; however, they’ll be crimes. It is essential to understand that not all ethical things are crook, however it is also vital to recognize that not all immoral subjects are illegal. Let’s consider following example

A patient with HIV/AIDS refuses to tell his spouse of his condition. His physician feels morally bound to warn her but is directed by law to stringently safeguard confidentiality. A patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig disease), dying a slow, agonizing death, asks her physician to prescribe analgesics so that she may die with dignity. Her physician feels that complying would be compassionate and humane but knows that the law makes physician‐assisted suicide a crime, allowing comfort care for pain and other symptoms but punishing actions intended to hasten death. A physician calls the patient’s health plan to complain that its refusal to authorize a longer hospital stay will be harmful to the patient. The health plan remains steadfast, the patient is discharged and subsequently is readmitted for emergency surgery that results in loss of a limb.

Dilemmas such as these are not just tools of the classroom; they occur in the real world of the practicing physician. Not infrequently, physicians are called upon to examine both the ethical and legal dimensions of problems in patient care, and to ask: “It’s ethical, but is it legal?” or conversely, “It’s legal, but is it ethical?” Each question calls us to explore the common, and uncommon, ground between two disciplines that have been instrumental and closely intertwined in the emergence of biomedical ethics and health law (more generally bioethics) as critical components of contemporary medicine (Annas, 1993; Capron and Michel, 1993). In turn, each discipline has also earned an important foothold in the training of future physicians in undergraduate medical education.

Also, cases Like stealing are hard to report since collecting evidence Is not always easy unless the act is captured by a security camera or another employee witnesses the same situation. 2. Waste My answer to this question was NO, as I feel that waste is hard to be defined and measured. Waste can be as simple as waste of paper, wasting valuable work time where tasks can be performed or wasting resources such as not matching up employee’s potentials with the type of work performed. Waste of paper is something very simple and can be quickly corrected by setting up an environmental awareness policy at the workplace.

But, waste of valuable work time or resources Is more serious, especially If It affects everyone else on the team (I. E. ) deliverables to the client and would have to be reported to a superior. 3. Mismanagement My answer to this question is YES, as mismanagement might lead to waste of resources and time. This also leads to frustration amidst employees as they might have to repeat a task over and over again due to mismanagement of Information or work long hours due to miscalculation of time.

This should be reported to a superior as mismanagement over time leads to economical problems in an organization as more money has to be spent to fix something that should have been done right in the first place. Safety Problems 4. My answer to this question Is YES, as workplace safety Is top portly as It affects the life of employees, productivity of the team and also costs an employer a lot of money in worker’s coma and employee’s compensation. Workplace safety is very important and needs to be reported as the damages caused by safety issues might involve one or several people and may turn out to be fatal if neglected. . Sexual Harassment and quality of work. Many employees may not report this issue for fear of losing their jobs, but it is important to report such behavior to stop the issue from occurring gain and to protect the overall morale of the team. It is good to collect evidence, such as taped conversations or emails so that the person is unable to deny his/her behavior. 6. Unfair Discrimination My answer to this question is YES, as the corporate culture today is very diverse and people from various countries and cultures work together. Unfair discrimination on the basis of race, religion, culture, sexual orientation etc… s very demoralizing and brings down an employee’s morale. Unfair discrimination also leads to stereotyping as the group or individual who faces discrimination feels that no matter how good hey perform, it will never be acceptable. Unfair discrimination needs to be reported as it squashes good talent, new ideas and innovation. Good support from superiors above managers is necessary to curb discrimination. It is also helpful to collect evidence in the form of emails or support from other employees who have experienced similar discrimination. Legal Violation and Financial Reporting 7.

My answer to both of these is YES, as legal and financial violations both face serious consequences from the Judicial system and the company might incur huge fines as a result of these violations. Companies can even get shut down as a result of legal violations and financial reporting issues and both of these must be taken seriously and reported. Types of Retaliation 1 . Coworkers not associating with person. I have not witnessed this yet as many of us on my current team confide in each other and discuss common issues, we maintain an open dialogue and do not dissociate with a person who brings up an ethical issue.

We collectively work and support each other to resolve the issue. 2. Pressure from co-workers to stop complaint. I have personally not witnessed this till date, but have seen it in other cases where there co- workers have persuaded another co-worker to not complain against my boss as several other people who complained before about similar issues were let go. My boss being the director of the department has the support of the UP of our department who can influence HRS decisions even if a person chose to report to HER.

It would be nice to have a non biased and approachable person heading the department or a HER manager or UP who was open to review issues. But the key is collect adequate and relevant evidence to support the case. I have witnessed this in work environments where people have been with the organization for a very long time and consider any new hire or entry to be a threat or challenge to their position. Ego, insecurity and narrow mindedness play a key part in this issue, as people feel that though they have done a task inefficiently for several years, it is right as nobody has pointed out otherwise.

If a person new to the team points out the inefficiency, egos flare up and hostility begins. 4. Poor performance appraisal. This happened to a co-worker of mine who no longer works for the organization as my boss felt that he was a threat to her position as he was very knowledgeable and ride to suggest new processes for existing tasks (I. E. ) new ways of doing things more efficiently. His probation was extended during his review stating that he did not complete his tasks on hand in a timely manner, did not communicate effectively etc… Which were all false accusations.

He did have adequate evidence to go to HER to report my manager and chose not to come back to an environment of hostility but was well compensated by the company for the entire mental trauma he went through and for the time he spent on the issue. 5. Verbal harassment or intimidation. I did witness this in several situations at different workplaces. In my current workplace (I. E. ) in the case I mentioned in the previous item (#4), my ex-coworker had to put up with verbal harassment from my manager who would snap at him for reasons unknown or would confront him on issues in staff meetings and try to put him down.

In another case at a previous workplace, my immediate manager would always give one of my co-workers a hard time as she was recently promoted to a Project Meg’s position but he expected a lot out of her and offered no help to mentor her. He loud constantly criticize her work and would lower her morale with his demoralizing comments. She finally resigned after feeling intimidated and threatened by her superior. This type of issue hampers team work and lowers the teams morale as people get scared to present new ideas for fear of getting shunned or losing their position.

Tighter scrutiny of daily work by management, reassignment to a different 6. Job, reassignment to a different Job with less desirable duties and denial of a promotion. I have seen this happen in cases in my current organization when an employee rises to report a manager’s unethical actions such as discrimination to higher authorities and the manager indicates hostility towards the employee as the manager is under scrutiny. s run and tries to apply for another position within the company, the current manager starts getting hostile and indifferent as they consider a person transferring from their department to be an indication of bad management on their part. A simple dialogue and an effort to resolve the issue is all that is required which most managers tend to ignore. As stated in an article published in the Ethics Resource Center (2009) about Enron’s downfall: To help avoid the fate of Enron and other companies whose ethics are called into question.

Although the liability of a malfunctioned transistor is on he manufacturer, Justifying the manufacturer’s acts of deception would be utilitarianism because of Its moral reasoning. In this paper, I shall discuss the general utilitarian issues of the case. In addition, I will apply the different steps of the utility Test and I shall apply this comparative approach to the study of the Common-Good Test.

Although my judgments are implicitly concerned with generalizing the ethical issues of the case, I shall criticize the utilitarianism; the view that the best decision is the one that maximizes the expected utility over those who are affected Baron 1990). In addition, the paper shall inform as well as to which approach, the utility Test, or the Common-Good Test best evaluates the case. Introduction utilitarianism is foreseen as unjust because it leads to conclusions that permit those who are fortunate to hurt people with less fortunate situations.

For example, in The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier, if the company decides to continue it sells of transistors without the proper engineering testing It is benefiting financially at the cost of the pacemaker patients and their families who rely on such technology for survival. If utilitarianism Is the normative theory. Hen my Judgments correct or not could fail to bring sense to any present or future consequence.

However, this sort of knowledge will allow the reader to understand the situation of the case. Utilitarian Issues There were many ethical issues involving the selling of transistor supplies to the pacemaker company. If the company continues to supply the transistors then It Is possible that It could suffer a future financial loss. If a lawsuit were to occur, the company would not only lose financial profits but also its shareholders and employees would suffer from the consequence as well.

By stopping the selling of the transistors to the pacemaker company, it would put them out of business; however, the supplier needs to evaluate the number of deaths that have occurred because of the different malfunctions of the transistors. On contrast, if the company remains as the sole supplier of the units and decides to stop Its manufacturing, heart patients In need of a pacemaker would die.

In addition, the pacemaker technology would be put at a halt and improvements would never be found; therefore, future heart pacemaker patients would not benefit from any innovative breakthroughs. Utility Test The consequences of a heart patient dying because of the selling of a transistor are high according to the case; however, based on Thomas Shanks, (1996) heart patients In need of a pacemaker Implant for survival can be saved only by supplying the transistors but the company that manufactures the transistors are concerned saved.

Although the pacemaker technology was in its infancy, malfunctions continued to be of concern to the manufacturers because of the legal actions that could occur; therefore, the utilitarian question would be determined on the following question: How many deaths will occur because of the malfunctions with the transistors? The answer could be that in cases such as, The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier the patient in need of an implant, the supplier, the manufacturer, and the stakeholder should sacrifice the chances of a malfunction although all of the patients involved have a right not to sacrifice in any way.

However, a right is a social rule that saves people certain worries and protective behavior. If a heart patient in need of an implant is sacrificed, all human beings would have to take precautions against companies such as this one for the benefit of there. In addition, all individuals regardless of medical reasons would worry about situations like this because at the end, implanting a pacemaker at their risk for the benefit of others would worry everyone. For this principle, the sacrifice may not be Justified in utilitarian terms.

Outcomes or Utility Rights can always be outweighed; therefore, rights are never absolute. An individual’s Judgments are prone to error. We suspect of those who take a situation upon themselves to violate someone else’s rights for their own good or someone else’s good. Rights are worth enforcing because they serve as a utilitarian purpose. In a utilitarian analysis, practices put forward as rights might not be Justifiable in terms of their consequences because they are for their own goal achievement rather than for everyone.

In short terms, heart patients in need of a pacemaker would not be the only ones suffering from such consequences because all individuals have equal standing rights as a person regardless of medical reasons or not. Applying the Utility Test Making the correct decision to produce the best outcome for everyone requires a revision of the current engineering testing. The following considerations will examine the company’s goods while minimizing the harm to heart patients. Without the manufacturer of the transistors, the company will go out of business, the employees lose their Jobs, and shareholders lose their money. The supplier company runs the risk of legal action, which would result in the possible employee layoffs and shareholders experience a potential financial loss. Pacemaker patients face death because manufacturer would stop selling transistors for the creation of pacemakers. However, if the transistors continue to be manufactured pacemaker patients continue to face a possible death because of malfunctions. 0 Future icemaker patients although not the primary stakeholders, could benefit from the implants because of the ongoing advances and improvements that the company does to improve their units.

The following possible options could be taken into consideration by the supply company. 0 Stop selling transistors to the buying company. Although the supplier losses profit earned from the sales of the transistors, it would avoid any future legal actions and avoid Jeopardizing the company. In addition, the rights of the supplier’s employees and stakeholders would be preserved. Employees will continue to have a Job and earn a living, which it would to be possible if layoffs occurred after the financial lawsuits. On contrast, the company in business and earning profits. Future patients could benefit from new and improved pacemaker technology. It also preserves the right of their employees and shareholders to continue earning a living and making profit. It also preserves the rights of the patients by providing a choice. The patient will make the decision of risking a malfunction without someone else’s decision. Drawing a Conclusion The ethical decision would be to continue to supply the transistors in order for the majority of people to benefit.

If the manufacturing company stopped producing the pacemakers, the patient’s basic right would be lost; therefore, their freedom to life would be lost as well. An individual’s should outweigh any financial gain or loss too company and although the pacemaker technology was a new innovative alternative, consideration should be given to how it would make a difference in the future. Employees would keep their right to earn a living, while the company’s shareholders keep the right to increase their wealth. This decision is the only possible way that would serve the majority of the people.

Common Good Test As the Pacemaker technology was serving as the common good, by protecting people’s rights to a new and promising medical technology, the supplier of the transistors and the manufacturing company compared the penalty Judgments in question. They would make safer product vs.. The question of not making the product. For example, the company knew that the transistors malfunctioned but was reconsidering the selling of the product because they were concerned with the possible legal actions. If the company stopped selling the transistors, it would avoid any legal action.

On contrast, society depends on new medical technologies; therefore, if they kept the possible malfunctions as a secret it would avoid any future effects. The two facts mean that the consequences of selling the transistors would justify the means because by selling the units an action is right if it creates the best outcome. However, this stipulation rules out any effects because if patients accepted an implant knowing of such malfunctions rather than denying the malfunctions the company is acting honest and its fulfilling its contractual obligation at the same time. Which Approach

The Utility Test is the most informative method compared to the Common Good Test because it allows people to determine if the transistors design is defective; therefore, it makes the manufacturer liable for any injuries that their product causes. Conclusion Utilitarianism allows a company or an individual evaluate their decisions through a set of practical guidelines (Baron, 1985). In this paper, I have summarized the utilitarian approach to the common good test and I have described several suggestions in which an individual’s intuition often contradicts the utilitarian theory.

People seem to think that penalties are inherently deserved and that they should be applied even when there is deterrence. In addition, it is believed that compensation should be greater when people get harmed by nature. In contrast to utilitarian, people are reluctant in harming people Just to help another person, and they become reluctant to initiate reforms when the benefits are unequally distributed although People differ in each case but according to the findings of Larkin, Anisette, & Morgan (1990), those who follow utilitarian are no different from those who do not follow utilitarian.

Son of famed historian and Puller Prize winner David McCullough, English instructor David McCullough, Jar. Delivered one of the most controversial and memorable high-school commencement speeches on June 7, 2012. Addressing over 400 capped and gowned graduating students, family, and friends at Wellesley High School, McCullough humorous Introduction set the attention-garnering foundation for his main argument: to inspire his audience-?and this generation-?to be exceptional and lead extraordinary lives” (McCullough,Jar. ).

Perhaps the most revocation piece of McCullough presentation is his simple and challenging proposition: “You’re not special. ” A direct response to the exigency that everyone Is uniquely gifted, the phrase was Immediately demonic by social media and generated a maelstrom of conflicting responses. But rather than analyze this comment as a self-evident rhetorical entity, it is instead important to review McCullough message In context. McCullough effectively frames ethical, logical, and pathetic appeals with preexisting commonplaces and a calculated delivery to further his positive precept for the future generation.

Situated ethos primes McCullough audience and lends credibility to his argument before he even utters a word. A retro’s ability to persuade, in fact, Is directly linked to their reputation: preconceived moral Judgments affect the perceived validity of the messenger (Crowley and Heehaw, 148). Thus, McCullough prestigious social standing-?devoted teacher, advocate of civic engagement, and son of a prolific academic-?commands respect and receptiveness.

For example, McCullough authority as a scholar is reinforced by his reference to ancient philosophers and prominent literary figures: “You’ve learned, o, I hope, as Sophocles assured us, that wisdom Is the chief element of happiness. ” By virtue of his extrinsic virtuosity, the audience perceives McCullough as reputable, a veritable expert in the field. This shared rhetorical lens, or commonplace, consequently establishes a positive Interpersonal dimension between McCullough and his audience and promotes attentive listening.

An audience engaged with the rhetoric moreover shifts individuals’ attitudes from indifference to acceptance or rejection, two states conducive to persuasion (163). Additionally, McCullough later assertions to carper the heck out of the diem” and resist the easy comforts of complacency’ are bolstered by his social eminence. Ultimately, an exemplary rhetoric is more efficacious at telling his audience to be exemplary: McCullough message is transformed through situated ethos.

Just as McCullough rhetorical proposition is strengthened through ethos, so too Is the effectiveness of his dialectical conclusion reliant upon all aspects of logical appeal. McCullough first lays an Inductive foundation on which to build his deductive argument that “You’re not special. ” This inundation, in fact, is augmented both in potency and applicability by McCullough detailed enumeration of irrefutable instances and cognizance of contentious reasoning. Many of McCullough particulars demand belief without further elaboration; they are what Aristotle deemed “[… J scientific demonstrations” (119).

Indeed, McCullough statistical evidence not only serves as incontrovertible proof, 1 OFF encompassing: “So think about this: even if you’re one in a million, on a planet of 6. 8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 Just like you. ” McCullough facts also carry eight because he utilizes outside expertise to corroborate his claims: “In fact, astrophysicists assure us the universe has no center; therefore, you cannot be it. ” Furthermore, McCullough exposes the false pretenses on which many audience members claim academic superiority and distinction: “And I hope you caught me when I said ‘one of the best. But the phrase defies logic. By definition there can be only one best. You’re it or you’re not. ” Interestingly, McCullough further demonstrates the fallacious nature of this reasoning by noting that the venue-?the Wellesley High football stadium-?is a literal level playing field. ” Having not only piled on particulars” (124) but also shown the illogic of opposing claims, McCullough conclusion-?that no one is special-?readily follows. His subsequent deduction, thoroughly dependent on the strength of his inductive reasoning, is thus nearly inescapable.

It goes as follows: No one is special; you are someone; you are not special. This syllogism certainly hearkens to the literal meaning of anthem, cutting right to the heart of the matter” (125). McCullough recognizes that an individual’s response to a proposition is dependent on preexisting commonplaces which coalesce into larger ideologies. For this reason, his logical appeal challenges the normally unarticulated but widely held belief that everyone has talents which differentiate them from others.

By objectively attacking a near universal commonplace, McCullough makes his message relevant to his entire audience and indisputable. McCullough, in turn, concludes his speech with a collection of dialectical dictums: “Develop and protect a moral sensibility and demonstrate the character to apply it. Dream big. Work hard. Think for yourself. ” These final developments are McCullough true proposition to the Wellesley High School graduates of 2012. Though improvable, the rhetorical impact and acceptance of such moral adages relies upon the perceived “wisdom” (119) of the rhetoric.

Thus, McCullough compelling message-?his dialectical claims-?are substantiated by his logically sound reasoning, resulting in a message that fully resonates with the audience. McCullough also furthers his proposition by altering the emotional state of his audience and challenging commonplaces with pathos. Speeches are neither given nor received in a vacuum; McCullough audience, showered with accolades, brings with them preexisting states of self-absorption and entitlement.

As such, a powerful change in emotional intensity is required to induce openness and receptivity. McCullough effects this change through pejorative language and indirect confrontation of sensitive commonplaces. His diction-?including words like “pamper,” “cosset,” “dote,” and “bubble-wrap”-?is colorful and conveys disparaging, valued judgments” (186). Similarly, his degradation of commonplace symbols like trophies ND awards contests the ideological underpinning that such achievements have intrinsic value: “If everyone gets a trophy, trophies become meaningless.

We have of late, we Americans, to our detriment, come to love accolades more than genuine achievement. ” Perhaps most inciting is McCullough cynical description of childhood, being doted upon and called sweetie pie. ” The net effect is an emotional globalization of the audience which polarize beliefs and generates a genuine, hierarchy affects emotional responses-?individuals are less indignant at those of rater communal standing (176)-?McCullough position allows to him to temper his message and strike an optimal balance between boredom and excessive “C… Enrage” (185). In this way, McCullough increases audience enforceability and the impact of his other rhetorical claims. Just as important as his rhetorical appeals is McCullough delivery, which confers eloquence on a seemingly scathing commentary. In truth, however, McCullough body language, tone, and cadence highlight some weaknesses as an orator. It was evident that he read from a manuscript, and he made no use of deliberate pauses to highlight certain concepts. As such, some of McCullough more grandiose ideas and imagery were not done justice.

Nonetheless, McCullough mastery of one stylistic piece of ammunition is apparent: calculated perception and humor. His tasteful use of levity is effective because it appeals to all sectors of his audience; consider his references to baseball, marriage, Barney, M)LO,” and the universal distaste for Donald Trump’s hair, which is “C… ] quite a phenomenon. ” McCullough humorous, multidimensional allure-?a emission unrepresented in multimedia portrayal-?makes the tenets of his oration memorable and adds a much needed human element.

Through situated ethos, logos, pathos, ubiquitous commonplaces, and a cogent delivery, English instructor David McCullough, Jar. Effectively conveys a timeless and fundamental doctrine to his audience: to lead “The fulfilling life, the distinctive life, the relevant life. ” And though a superficial synopsis of uniform Not Special” is a caustic condemnation of the future generation, a genuine examination reveals a much deeper, uplifting truth: life is not meant to be accomplished, but experienced.

What is the main purpose of prison BY assists What is the main purpose of prisons? Although the human society is marching on all the time, a variety of crimes such as cheat, steal and even more serious kidnapping, rape and murder keep happening around us unavoidably. In order to maintain the stability of our countries and punish those people who commit crimes, prisons appear. That is the simplest reason for prison establishing, and in this article I will analyze the purpose of prisons deeply.

Generally speaking, despite the punishment action, known as retribution, the purpose of prisons can be divided into another 3 categories. Firstly, incapacitation, it can be expressed as isolating the criminals and depriving their freedom by locking them in a secure place. Secondly, for people who intend to commit crime but have not broken the laws, prisons are deterrence to some extent. In another word, prisons act as a warning in people’s mind to prevent future crimes.

Finally, rehabilitation means that the prisons have the responsibility to develop prisoners’ abilities and integrate them into society after releasing. Those activities may include but not limited in launching educational courses, teaching Job skills, informing current news s well as providing psychotherapy by professional staffs. However, after explaining the functions of prisons thoroughly, there comes a new problem for us, what should be the main purpose of prisons – rehabilitation (positive side) or punishment/societal protection (negative side)?

In my opinion, it depends on the crime behavior and the intent behind the crime. If it is not a serious crime such as driving after drinking a bottle of beer, then absolutely yes, this person should be forgiven. And in this case, rehabilitation is the main purpose of prison to get him off of the wrong behavior. But then, if someone commit violate criminals such as murder or rape, the purpose of prison will change to the negative side and most of ordinary people will agree with locking him and punishing him with no hesitation.

In this case, it is not necessary to give him another opportunity and the prison’s duty is only isolating the prisoner and taking away all the luxury things so that rehabilitation is not that important. In addition, if someone commits crime due to addition and has psychological problems, then rehabilitation should be put as priority, because punishment is useless for reforming addicts.

Pain and Passion was a strong topic. The class was divided into pairs to take a 50-minute lesson linking with pain and passion. Two drama techniques had to be introduced. After each lesson a five minute debrief took place. We were given two lessons of preparation time and had to work to a time plan.

I knew it would take a lot of effort to run a lesson. I chose a topical issue sparking off lots of strong opinions. My lesson was about abortion. I felt it tied in well with pain and passion. The pain being a child’s life was at risk due to the night of passion.

I wasn’t first to lead the class so I listened attentively to what criticism was put forward during the debrief. I learnt from other’s mistakes. One of the things I found was that a lesson should be expressed through different scenarios, keeping the class’s attention.

I set the scene with a young couple, Sarah and Jake, who were in a crisis. The crisis being, should have an abortion or not.

The first part of my timeplan was explaining the situation and then asking the class to show, what state of mind Sarah was in. The ideas were to be expressed through stylistic drama using one drama technique or more. In other lessons more time was spent on planning helping to produce good drama pieces from the class. I decided to have more time spent on planning rather than performing.

The second part consisted of what if Sarah had the abortion or didn’t. In each scenario there had to be a good and bad side. The good side of having or not having the abortion was to be shown through dream sequence and the bad side of having or not having the abortion shown through nightmare sequence.

I thought I planned my lesson well considering I was on my own.

I wasn’t prepared for the lesson I took the class. I had forgotten my watch and my partner was away leaving me to be the teacher. One improvement can be to go over my planning strategies.

I relaxed and addressed the class with a BBC accent!

The first piece of drama was on Sarah’s state of mind. The class planned their pieces quite well but the pieces were short giving me more time. One group had only four people. Many people think more people in a group make a better drama piece. This group proved it wrong.

The drama piece was very distinctive. The other groups showed one feeling throughout their drama. This play showed how Sarah was happy at the thought of being a mother and sad at the thought of having a child to bring up. As the teacher I was able to see abortion through other people’s eyes.

Each student had a major role to play especially Maria as Sarah. It’s really hard to change expressions every second but she made it look so easy. Everyone got involved and this boosted my confidence as a teacher to see that they were enjoying the lesson.

The other half of the lesson went perfectly. The class had to use the drama techniques I set, dream and nightmare sequence. Everyone performed well due to good planning.

Scarlet’s group did a nightmare sequence about Sarah’s life with a baby. It was a negative outlook on having children. There were strong ideas expressed throughout the play. The audience was able to see how having a baby at a young age was stressing and sometimes left with no financial or emotional support. It was an excellent piece of drama.

I think I showed good teaching skills. I was quite patient but I felt it was quite difficult to keep the class quiet even when raising my voice. I went round to see if there were any problems and keeping track of time, which is a vital part of teaching. One of the hardest things was the way I had to address the class. I had to step out of the role of a friend and step in as a teacher. When it came to commenting on a drama piece I had to use ‘excellent’ rather than ‘wicked’. The lesson was very packed with things to do and this put off a few students from working. In future I would slow everything down slightly.

Apart from that everything went according to plan.

Rochelle and Yasmins lesson was very valuable. Rochelle explained everything whilst Yasmin organised the lesson. Yasmin is normally the quieter one but in her lesson she was very confident. Their topic was about war. War is probably what the news is all about. There is so much of it, people are forgetting about those in need. The main theme of the lesson was we should be grateful for how well off we are and think about others before worrying over small problems.

The lesson began with a piece about a boy escaping from war to a new area. I took on the main role as the boy. We were playing basketball when I got the ball and everyone was telling me to shoot. We used flashbacks to show how the boy was told in his homeland to kill his own flesh and blood. We were showing the pressures of war. I was very enthusiastic about everything.

Next we did hotseating. We questioned people part of the army in Africa. We asked why many boys were forced to go to war. It sparked a lot of debating.

Rochelle and Yasmin were good teachers. I enjoyed myself whilst I was learning. They were role models for good teachers.

I think being a teacher was a worthwhile experience. Sometimes we forget to realise what teachers do to provide good education. This topic was a good way to see that teaching is not as easy as it may look. It takes a lot of hard work and 100% commitment.

Through this topic I have more respect for teachers.