What roles did the leaders of Veronese Society Play in the deaths of the lovers in Romeo and Juliet Essay Example For Students

What roles did the leaders of Veronese Society Play in the deaths of the lovers in Romeo and Juliet? Essay In the play Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare, many leaders within the lovers lives played key roles in their last days, with severe mistakes and misjudgements clearing the path for the chain of events that saw the their demise. In all ranks and at many times in the play, lack of good leadership and advisory qualities meant that large mistakes remained uncovered and unnoticed. At these crucial times, guidance provided for the two young lovers was deficient, and this allowed the tragic inevitability to ensue. All the leaders influencing the lives of Romeo and Juliet played a part which, in the end, led to death and catastrophe. Successful leadership maintains a safe and stable society, and while being rational, should not be too soft or too restrictive. The leader is required to do this within the area of his responsibility and nowhere else, which was another mistake made by many leaders in the play. Though different leaders had different arcs of influence, their oversights and failures meant that every way of preventing the final consequence was ineffective. Prince Escales is the highest ranking leader in the play, and he bears ultimate responsibility for all the people of Verona. It is therefore worrying that such a person is weak and illogical in decisions that he makes. This is first shown in Act 1, Scene 1, when he takes action to end a fight between the two feuding families. Enter Prince Escales with his train Prince On pain of tortureThrow your mistemperd weapons to the ground If ever you disturb our streets again Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace I.i.80-81, 90-91 The Princes speech after he enters may be powerful, but this does not mean that the discussion on the matter should be definitely over. This shows that the decision for this law was hastily made only at the Princes arrival, without any consultation of Montague and Capulet or even any other witnesses. The speech is the first thing that he does after he enters. This shows bad leadership as a good leader must place himself within his people and guide them, based partially on their own decisions. However, Escales shows his lack of thought early on by firstly making the law before any consultations take place. Contrarily, Escales is shown to have authority and respect, though it is unclear how much: he must stop the fight on pain of torture which suggests force is a primary factor in his rule. His military authority and power, though not exercised, is also shown when he describes the Montagues and Capulets weapons as mistemperd. Though this suggests primarily that the weapons are offensiv e and angry towards one another, another meaning of this can also be that the weapons are weak and no match for the Princes, as steel for weapons is tempered to make it harder and more durable. This is a pun used by Shakespeare, though not primarily for comic effect, to convey multiple attitudes the Prince has towards the feud, and to show the Prince uses the threat of his vast military power. However, a leader must choose to use his power and tread carefully when he does. To stop the feud the law that he has passed may frighten the families into submission as they do not want to lose family members, bringing peace. Though initially this seems like a good settlement, the issue of blame is more complicated than being able to accuse responsibility for an action on one person, especially when there are two sides in a feud, as is later found out when Tybalt is killed. A successful leader must determine the outcome of his actions and the problems faced with making a shock decision. Though militarily strong, Prince Escales shows his weakness as a leader by making unconsidered and immediate decisions without much thought to the consequences. The failure of strong leadership in this highest order secures a breakdown when the law imposed on these aristocratic families has to be put into action when Romeo kills Tybalt. Here the Prince shows his leadership is inconsistent and biased. Who now the price of his dear blood doth owe? III.i.179 And for that offence Immediately we do exile him hence. III.i.182-183 The fight between Mercutio and Tybalt, in which Romeo is forced to intervene when Mercutio is killed, is a clear example of the absurdity of the law the Prince imposed. In these circumstances the only person who can be punished is Romeo, as he is the only one living. However, the issue of blame can be taken to either Tybalt, since he killed Mercutio, or Romeo, who took the law into his own hands. Apart from passing an irrational law at the beginning, the Prince also fails to demonstrate another vital quality of a leader: he must be impartial when making decisions. Though there is no bias towards one family throughout the whole of the play, Prince Escales has relatives on both sides of the feud, which causes him to sometimes take sides. Examples of these relations are Mercutio, whose blood is dear to the Prince, a good friend of Romeo, and Paris, who is Juliets suitor. If a leader is to maintain control of a situation, such as Escales is trying to do in the play, bias can make the situation more volatile and uncontrollable, as the unfavoured party will become more aggressive. A successful leader must rise above any ties he has to a situation and think clearly. However, in this fight scene, Escales does seem to listen first before giving an ultimatum, which he does in his speech. The use of rhyming couplets in Escales speech has the effect of an ending as rhyming couplets are crisp sounding and cause the sentence end solidly and sharply, with no further sounds. This therefore emphasises the fact that this decision is ultimate. The lexis, such as Immediately and hence, also show the decision is not up for debate, because the action is abrupt. Overall, the fact that the Prince acted differently on the law he so clearly imposed shows his inconsistency and weakness as leader. Furthermore, his decision was affected by bias. The word dear (III.i.179) has two meanings, as Mercutios blood is precious, but also beloved to the Prince. This implies the Prince is truly saddened; however, a strong leader must not let personal issues come in the way of justice. Using this emotive language suggests that the Princes decision not to execute Romeo was aided by the fact that Romeo acted in vengeance for the murder of the Princes own kinsman. This weakness towards family members may have greatly affected Capulets definite decision to make Juliet marry the County Paris, a relative of the Prince, as it would give Capulet advantage, especially over the outcome of the reopened feud. Although a clear leader of society, such as the Prince, can have influence on peoples behaviour by creating laws, a leader within a family can have a far greater effect mentally and emotionally on those in it. The most significant of these roles is parenthood. A parent must guide the child through times of uncertainty and despair, and the trust between the two is essential for both the welfare of the child and the security of the parent. As a great leader must do, a parent must also balance control and freedom. Due to his own selfishness and pride, Capulets changing attitude towards Juliet throughout the play creates a rift between Juliet and him that becomes impossible to repair. Let two more summers wither in their pride, Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride Younger than she are happy mothers made. Earth hath swallowd all my hopes but she My will to her consent is but a part I.ii.10-12, 14, 17 At the beginning of the play, Capulet is shown to be caring and very much in favour of Juliets own decision, instead of a forceful arranged marriage. My will to her consent is but a part suggests that although the County Paris is noble and a worthy husband to Juliet, (also a worthy entrant to the Capulet family) the real decision does indeed lie with her about her own marriage. Capulet points out to Paris in lines 10-11 that Juliet is too young. However, as Paris argues to Capulet, girls even younger than Juliet marry and even have children. This was common in the time of Shakespeare, and due to the high infant mortality rates of that time women had many children, accounting for the fact that many would die. Sadly, the life expectancy for mothers was also shortened due to the unhygienic conditions and lack of treatment for birth complications from so many pregnancies therefore it was custom for girls to have children only just into their teens. Capulet also demonstrates this when sa ying Earth hath swallowd all my hopes but she, which shows that all his other children have died. The metaphor comparing children to hopes in this line also emphasises the fact that Juliet is the pinnacle and dream of his whole life. This therefore suggests further that he is a compassionate and loving father to Juliet. The play 'Translations' by Brian Friel EssayRomeos a dishclout to him and you no use of him Speakst thou from thy heart? And from my soul too, else beshrew them both. III.v.217, 219, 225-227 Juliet is, of course, truly and deeply in love with Romeo. In the past, for Juliets happiness, the Nurse has advised Juliet to marry Romeo as soon as possible, which satisfied Juliet greatly as Romeo was her only true love. Though at that point merely an accelerator to what Juliet wanted to do, the Nurse shows her naivety and misunderstanding when she thinks that Juliet will think the same way as her, just as she has done with the Nurses actions about Romeo. Due to her much lower social class and lack of education, the Nurse is unsophisticated and therefore does not understand the concept of true love. She describes Juliets relationship with Romeo as Juliets use of Romeo. This is a vulgar statement like many of the Nurses and suggests that Juliet only loves Romeo for use for sex. Her trivial response to love may also be due to her great loss at childbirth, which emotionally scarred her in this way. Therefore she thinks that Juliet can just switch lovers. Thinking Juliet is on her side, she even insults Romeo by comparing him to a dishclout, which is a rag for cleaning dishes, when placed by the Countys side. As Juliet is deeply in love with Romeo, the Nurses truly enrages and saddens Juliet. The Nurse also clearly does not understand the religious side of marriage, which suggests that she did not have a husband when she bore her own child. Shakespeare further makes this clear as she swears on a curse to her heart and soul beshrew means a curse, but as she does not use any Christian-specific language, for example heaven or hell, the point is made clear that the Nurse does not know at all about religion. A lower social class and education may have hindered her in parts, but the Nurse should have been able to see that, after spending her life with all of Juliets, the love between Romeo and Juliet was true. The Nurses vulgarity and ignorance of Juliets unfounded love for Romeo meant that in the final situation before the deadly plan was put into action, she wasnt involved. This prevented her from either intervening or persuading Juliet to stop, or from making sure it was known to some that Juliet was not truly dead. Overall, as a leading character in Juliets emotional life, therefore a leader of sorts, the Nurse failed in comforting and helping her, due to her own ignorance, when her help would have counted most. The final leader involved in this catastrophic saga was perhaps the most directly involved in all of it. As a friar of the order of Saint Francis, Friar Lawrence is highly respected and listened to in the play. He is educated, wise, and a holy man, making him valued among the citizens of Verona. It is for this reason that Romeo seeks his advice and assurance when in love with Juliet. However, his lack of thought about any consequences proves very costly for the lovers, at two critical points where the tragedy could have been stopped. Firstly, after Romeo and Juliet fall in love, Romeo comes to him to plea his consent in marriage. Hasty decision making and attempted control out of his arc of influence ensure that the sequence of events is not stopped. In one respect Ill thy assistant be: For this alliance may so happy prove To turn your households rancour to pure love. II.iii.90-93 Principally, a leader wishing to make a bold decision must carefully calculate the consequences of his actions. Friar Lawrence seems to only imagine one perfect outcome. Clearly, Friar Lawrence is shown to not envisage the hatred between these two families. However, the word rancour suggests that the hate is venomous, potent and deep running. It is therefore abnormal that such a man of great education and wisdom should make such a huge mistake. It seems that the intentions of Friar Lawrence are only good for a Utopian society: in reality a secret marriage would not only have terrible consequences between the two families, but at the centre of all the rage, taking hits from both families, would be the unfortunate lovers. Pure love used by Friar Lawrence, especially after rancour further suggests this, implying that the Friars dreams are just dreams. The Friar here is also operating out of his scope of influence, which is one of the worst things a leader can do. This usually leads to disrespect and condemnation by more powerful people that control the areas that the Friar cannot. It is possible that the Friar, however aspired to solve the feud, and wanted the pride for doing something that the Prince, with all his military power, could not do. His decision making also seems to be hugely affected by the want of Romeo and his profound love for Juliet the secret marriage occurs in Scene 6 (the final scene) in the same act, which suggests it was later that night. As aforementioned, a good leader must not be affected by those around him to make a calm and clear judgement something which the wise and learned Friar Lawrence is not able to do. Therefore, his failures in Act 2 with the performance of the marriage ceremony seem to have only been done for his own purposes, or just for two people, which means he failed as a leader, since a good leader should bring stability to the environment around him, and he made it more turbulent, ultimately leading to the deaths of the lovers. However, the Friar also performs the final act that dooms the couple more than anything else. The creating of his fake death plan for Juliet is primarily to save his image. By taking advantage of Juliet, and abusing his position as leader, he dooms the couple to an ill-fated plan which is the sole reason for their deaths. Hold, daughter, I do spy a kind of hope, Which craves as desperate an execution As that is desperate which we would prevent. IV.i.68-70 Desperate for himself not to be ridiculed in front of the whole of Verona, Friar Lawrence persuades Juliet to take a fake death potion, which would make her appear dead for 42 hours. We would prevent suggests that Friar Lawrence is also deeply involved and would want the plan to work for both his and Juliets sake. Because Juliet is very much deeply in love with Romeo, the Friar is able to take advantage, and use this highly critical and deadly plan. Instead of good counsel and leadership, where, like a good leader, he must devise a hard but honest outcome to the situation, slightly sacrificing his own image in the process, he hastily develops the desperate and ill-fated plan, which secures the tragic fate of the lovers. Here, the Friar only has a kind of hope that the plan would work. This is bad leadership, as he is abusing his position as a trusted and respected man to force this plan, that has a very high chance of total and tragic failure, on Juliet. For a critical, life and death, situation such as this, a solid means to solve the problem must be found and it should not just be left to hope that the Friars plan is built around. This shows the Friar is more concerned with his own pride and image than anything else, bringing a further conclusion that the marriage itself was foremost for pride of the Friar, and not just good intentions. Words such as desperate and hold suggest that the Friars plan is instinctive and hastily made, which it turns out to be. Under stress, Friar Lawrences leadership does not hold up and recklessness and rashness secure the fate of the lovers. Due to tremendous miscalculation and oversight on the Friars part, coupled with reckless decision making, the outcome becomes clear and tragic: due to the wedding being shifted one day earlier, death is imminent for the young lovers. Throughout the whole play, each leader, at the point where cool-headedness, calculation, and all those other aforementioned and explained qualities of a successful leader were paramount, failed to deliver. Arguably the largest failure was Friar Lawrence and his ill-fated plan, which was the reason the whole situation collapsed on Romeo and Juliet as it did. In spite of this, however, each of the leaders had a role to play, and if one of them had reacted in a manner a good leader should have done, the deadly sequence could have been stopped. However, no leader truly connected with the people that needed the most help, and therefore seeking love and true happiness the deadly chain took them to their final resting place.

james Essays - Bible Translations Into English, Wycliffes Bible

Throughout the Middle Ages literacy rates were extremely low in Europe, and hand copied manuscripts were expensive. The Bible and many legal documents were written in Latin or Greek, which were becoming increasingly dead languages used only by the church. Moreover, the statute of Valencia and other statutes had made it illegal for anyone not authorized by the Church to have even the Latin and Greek versions of the of the Bible. The laity therefore had to rely on the Church, government and powers that be for understanding and interpreting these documents. With the invention of the printing press, one of the first books to be printed was the bible, which was soon translated into several languages, often badly. The errors were due in part to ignorance and in part by attempts to use the Bible to further sectarian political or theological goals. A few small parts of the Bible had been translated into vernacular at different times. King Alfred translated the ten commandments, and Bede had translated the gospel of St John into Saxon language, but the translation was lost. In the fourteenth century. Wyclif had translated parts of the Bible and this work was completed after his death. Many copies of this "Lollard" bible in middle English were distributed before the invention of printing. The Genesis narrative opened: ?In the firste made God of nougt heuene and erthe. The erthe forsothe was veyn with ynne and void, and derknessis weren vpon the face of the see; and the Spiryt of God was born vpon the watrys. And God seide, Be maad ligt; and maad is ligt.? The Wyclif (or Wycliffe) bible was completed in 1388, four years after Wycliffe's death. Wycliffe himself had translated the New Testament , relegating the Old Testament translations to assistants with the necessary language skills. These Wycliffe bibles were laboriously copied out and distributed at great risk. The Catholic Church was horrified at the possibility that everyone would be able to read the Bible. In 1399, alarmed at the spread of Lollardy, the convocation of Oxford passed the statute De Heretico Comburendum, "Of the burning of heretics." This law was passed in Parliament by King Henry IV in 1401. It provided for burning of all those who held Lollard opinions, or possessed illegal books, including the translated Bible apparently, though it is a common misconception that it was directed only against the Bible. The De Heretico Comburendo statute stated: ...that none...presume to preach openly or privily, without the license of the diocesan of the same place first required and obtained, curates in their own churches and persons hitherto privileged, and other of the Canon Law granted, only except; nor that none from henceforth anything preach, hold, teach, or instruct openly or privily, or make or write any book contrary to the catholic faith or determination of the Holy Church, nor of such sect and wicked doctrines and opinions shall make any conventicles, or in any wise hold or exercise schools; and also that none from henceforth in any wise favor such preacher or maker of any such and like conventicles, or persons holding or exercising schools, or making or writing such books, or so teaching, informing, or exciting the people, nor any of them maintain or in any wise sustain, and that all and singular having such books or any writings of such wicked doctrine and opinions, shall really with effect deliver or cause to be delivered all such books and writings to the diocesan of the same place within forty days from the time of the proclamation of this ordinance and statute. The Lollards did not believe that the wine and wafer of the communion were transsubstantiated into the blood and body of Jesus, they refused to worship the cross as an object, and held many other such "dangerous" doctrines in addition to translating the Bible. The first person to be executed under the law was Sir William Sautre, who refused to abjure, among other heresies, the following: 1. he will not worship the cross on which Christ suffered, but only Christ that suffered upon the cross. 2. he would sooner worship a temporal king, than the aforesaid wooden cross. 3. he would rather worship the bodies of

Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Essays

Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Essays Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Paper Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Paper Essay Topic: Leviathan Throughout our study of political theory this semester there seems to be a recurring theme prevalent in each of the readings, that being an attempt to explain and characterize human nature. The concept of human nature relies on the idea that there is an innate set of characteristics shared by all humans which explain the way people act, feel, or even think. As a political scientist, its important to question what causes these characteristics to exist, if at all, as they are of great importance when trying to understand the vast political structure and all of the underlying factors which allow politics to function. I would also argue that the understanding of the concept of human nature is also crucial when discussing the realm of human society, as the idea of human nature provides the standard for how people can functionally coexist with one another while also determining whether or not an individual has lead a good life or not. Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli provide the best accounts of true human nature, as both men suggest that humans, by nature, are corrupt, self-interested, and are destined to destroy themselves and the people around them in an attempt to achieve their own desires, ideas which one can still see practiced in modern day capitalism. In his writing of Leviathan, Hobbes describes the individual human as a highly sophisticated machine, in which all of the inner-workings described as mechanical functions (Leviathan, p. 9). Hobbes relation of a human to a machine provides the jumping off point for his belief regarding what drives human actions. Hobbes claims that certain appetites or desires come about in the human experience and that these desires must be dealt with, and that each individual will choose to act upon these appetites in an effort to achieve their own self-preservation (Leviathan, p. 39). This view that it is human nature to act upon the desires which are most prevalent in our lives raises the idea that humans are innately self-interested, if not selfish. Hobbes acknowledges that the natural human inclination to act independently of one another while promoting self-interests results in a perpetual state of war through which men will attempt to conquer one another to achieve personal desires (Leviathan, p. 88-89). The state of war proposed by Hobbes results in a way of life that is solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short (Leviathan, p.89). The self-interested behavior that humans innately exhibit according to Hobbes, seems to draw a direct modern day parallel to the actions undertaken by many in Americas current capitalistic economic system, an issue which I will tackle farther along in my paper, but now I will turn to another cynic of human nature, Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli, perhaps even more so than Hobbes, had a very pessimistic view regarding human nature which is quite relevant throughout the numerous chapters of The Prince. For one can say this generally of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and dissemblers, evaders of danger, eager for gain. While you do them good, they are yours, offering you their blood, property, lives, and children when the need for them is far away; but, when it is close to you, they revolt. (The Prince, p. 66) Here Machiavelli provides an obviously destructive criticism of human nature, in that men innately are beings that will turn on one another at the drop of a hat when things arent going the way they wish them to. The statement that men are also eager for gain is also very telling in that Machiavelli believes, similar to the thought process of Hobbes, that it is human nature to act in a self-interested manner, where all that really matters is individual prosperity rather than social well-being. Machiavelli continues his assault on the nature of men when stating, love is held by a chain of obligation, which, because men are wicked, is broken at every opportunity for their own utility (The Prince, p. 66). Machiavelli here makes several ascertations regarding human nature, some similar to the beliefs presented by his first quote. First that the affection and trustworthiness of men is constantly on a tipping scale, in affluent times men can be trusted and are capable of love towards others, whereas when harsh times befall men, then will act to deceive and revert back to their selfish nature in order to gain a leg up in society. In reference to the chain of obligation being broken, Machiavelli is stating that it is human nature for men to break the ties which bind them to certain obligations when they see fit, and the breaking of these bonds shows how untrustworthy human beings truly are. Machiavelli yet again questions the trustworthiness and the self-interests of human nature by stating and if all men were good, this teaching would not be good; but because they are wicked and do not observe faith with you.. (The Prince, p. 69). Machiavelli again postulates that by human nature men are wicked, and in this instance in referring to the fact that men cannot be trusted because they do not share the same desires that the Prince may have. The idea that due to human nature men cannot be trusted again rears its ugly head. Finally I present a fourth and final quote from Machiavelli in regards to his thoughts of human nature: Truly it is a very natural and ordinary thing to desire to acquire, and always, when men do it who can, they will be praised or not blamed; but when they cannot, and wish to do it anyway, here lie the error and the blame. (The Prince, p. 14-15) Machiavelli again takes aim at the innate human desire to acquire wealth and material possessions for himself, but also at those who attempt to obtain such things. Another idea presented here is that one aspect of human nature is to glorify those who can achieve their goals, while at the same time admonishing those who, for some circumstance, werent able to achieve a certain goal. This statement says a lot regarding human nature, in that through achievement of goals one might obtain some sort of power, and it is human nature to admire any form of power regardless of how it can about. Machiavellis opinion of human nature is one that is cynical and at times dreadful, but in referencing his beliefs to the modern day acts of those in America, I dont think he was far off. 1. ) Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan https://reserves. lib. ncsu. edu/reservesViewer. php? reserve=158326 Accessed 2/22/10 2. ) Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago, IL: The U of Chicago P, 1998. Print.

Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Essays

Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Essays Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Paper Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Paper Essay Topic: Leviathan Throughout our study of political theory this semester there seems to be a recurring theme prevalent in each of the readings, that being an attempt to explain and characterize human nature. The concept of human nature relies on the idea that there is an innate set of characteristics shared by all humans which explain the way people act, feel, or even think. As a political scientist, its important to question what causes these characteristics to exist, if at all, as they are of great importance when trying to understand the vast political structure and all of the underlying factors which allow politics to function. I would also argue that the understanding of the concept of human nature is also crucial when discussing the realm of human society, as the idea of human nature provides the standard for how people can functionally coexist with one another while also determining whether or not an individual has lead a good life or not. Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli provide the best accounts of true human nature, as both men suggest that humans, by nature, are corrupt, self-interested, and are destined to destroy themselves and the people around them in an attempt to achieve their own desires, ideas which one can still see practiced in modern day capitalism. In his writing of Leviathan, Hobbes describes the individual human as a highly sophisticated machine, in which all of the inner-workings described as mechanical functions (Leviathan, p. 9). Hobbes relation of a human to a machine provides the jumping off point for his belief regarding what drives human actions. Hobbes claims that certain appetites or desires come about in the human experience and that these desires must be dealt with, and that each individual will choose to act upon these appetites in an effort to achieve their own self-preservation (Leviathan, p. 39). This view that it is human nature to act upon the desires which are most prevalent in our lives raises the idea that humans are innately self-interested, if not selfish. Hobbes acknowledges that the natural human inclination to act independently of one another while promoting self-interests results in a perpetual state of war through which men will attempt to conquer one another to achieve personal desires (Leviathan, p. 88-89). The state of war proposed by Hobbes results in a way of life that is solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short (Leviathan, p.89). The self-interested behavior that humans innately exhibit according to Hobbes, seems to draw a direct modern day parallel to the actions undertaken by many in Americas current capitalistic economic system, an issue which I will tackle farther along in my paper, but now I will turn to another cynic of human nature, Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli, perhaps even more so than Hobbes, had a very pessimistic view regarding human nature which is quite relevant throughout the numerous chapters of The Prince. For one can say this generally of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and dissemblers, evaders of danger, eager for gain. While you do them good, they are yours, offering you their blood, property, lives, and children when the need for them is far away; but, when it is close to you, they revolt. (The Prince, p. 66) Here Machiavelli provides an obviously destructive criticism of human nature, in that men innately are beings that will turn on one another at the drop of a hat when things arent going the way they wish them to. The statement that men are also eager for gain is also very telling in that Machiavelli believes, similar to the thought process of Hobbes, that it is human nature to act in a self-interested manner, where all that really matters is individual prosperity rather than social well-being. Machiavelli continues his assault on the nature of men when stating, love is held by a chain of obligation, which, because men are wicked, is broken at every opportunity for their own utility (The Prince, p. 66). Machiavelli here makes several ascertations regarding human nature, some similar to the beliefs presented by his first quote. First that the affection and trustworthiness of men is constantly on a tipping scale, in affluent times men can be trusted and are capable of love towards others, whereas when harsh times befall men, then will act to deceive and revert back to their selfish nature in order to gain a leg up in society. In reference to the chain of obligation being broken, Machiavelli is stating that it is human nature for men to break the ties which bind them to certain obligations when they see fit, and the breaking of these bonds shows how untrustworthy human beings truly are. Machiavelli yet again questions the trustworthiness and the self-interests of human nature by stating and if all men were good, this teaching would not be good; but because they are wicked and do not observe faith with you.. (The Prince, p. 69). Machiavelli again postulates that by human nature men are wicked, and in this instance in referring to the fact that men cannot be trusted because they do not share the same desires that the Prince may have. The idea that due to human nature men cannot be trusted again rears its ugly head. Finally I present a fourth and final quote from Machiavelli in regards to his thoughts of human nature: Truly it is a very natural and ordinary thing to desire to acquire, and always, when men do it who can, they will be praised or not blamed; but when they cannot, and wish to do it anyway, here lie the error and the blame. (The Prince, p. 14-15) Machiavelli again takes aim at the innate human desire to acquire wealth and material possessions for himself, but also at those who attempt to obtain such things. Another idea presented here is that one aspect of human nature is to glorify those who can achieve their goals, while at the same time admonishing those who, for some circumstance, werent able to achieve a certain goal. This statement says a lot regarding human nature, in that through achievement of goals one might obtain some sort of power, and it is human nature to admire any form of power regardless of how it can about. Machiavellis opinion of human nature is one that is cynical and at times dreadful, but in referencing his beliefs to the modern day acts of those in America, I dont think he was far off. 1. ) Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan https://reserves. lib. ncsu. edu/reservesViewer. php? reserve=158326 Accessed 2/22/10 2. ) Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago, IL: The U of Chicago P, 1998. Print.

Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Essays

Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Essays Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Paper Hobbes, Machiavelli and human nature Paper Essay Topic: Leviathan Throughout our study of political theory this semester there seems to be a recurring theme prevalent in each of the readings, that being an attempt to explain and characterize human nature. The concept of human nature relies on the idea that there is an innate set of characteristics shared by all humans which explain the way people act, feel, or even think. As a political scientist, its important to question what causes these characteristics to exist, if at all, as they are of great importance when trying to understand the vast political structure and all of the underlying factors which allow politics to function. I would also argue that the understanding of the concept of human nature is also crucial when discussing the realm of human society, as the idea of human nature provides the standard for how people can functionally coexist with one another while also determining whether or not an individual has lead a good life or not. Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli provide the best accounts of true human nature, as both men suggest that humans, by nature, are corrupt, self-interested, and are destined to destroy themselves and the people around them in an attempt to achieve their own desires, ideas which one can still see practiced in modern day capitalism. In his writing of Leviathan, Hobbes describes the individual human as a highly sophisticated machine, in which all of the inner-workings described as mechanical functions (Leviathan, p. 9). Hobbes relation of a human to a machine provides the jumping off point for his belief regarding what drives human actions. Hobbes claims that certain appetites or desires come about in the human experience and that these desires must be dealt with, and that each individual will choose to act upon these appetites in an effort to achieve their own self-preservation (Leviathan, p. 39). This view that it is human nature to act upon the desires which are most prevalent in our lives raises the idea that humans are innately self-interested, if not selfish. Hobbes acknowledges that the natural human inclination to act independently of one another while promoting self-interests results in a perpetual state of war through which men will attempt to conquer one another to achieve personal desires (Leviathan, p. 88-89). The state of war proposed by Hobbes results in a way of life that is solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short (Leviathan, p.89). The self-interested behavior that humans innately exhibit according to Hobbes, seems to draw a direct modern day parallel to the actions undertaken by many in Americas current capitalistic economic system, an issue which I will tackle farther along in my paper, but now I will turn to another cynic of human nature, Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli, perhaps even more so than Hobbes, had a very pessimistic view regarding human nature which is quite relevant throughout the numerous chapters of The Prince. For one can say this generally of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and dissemblers, evaders of danger, eager for gain. While you do them good, they are yours, offering you their blood, property, lives, and children when the need for them is far away; but, when it is close to you, they revolt. (The Prince, p. 66) Here Machiavelli provides an obviously destructive criticism of human nature, in that men innately are beings that will turn on one another at the drop of a hat when things arent going the way they wish them to. The statement that men are also eager for gain is also very telling in that Machiavelli believes, similar to the thought process of Hobbes, that it is human nature to act in a self-interested manner, where all that really matters is individual prosperity rather than social well-being. Machiavelli continues his assault on the nature of men when stating, love is held by a chain of obligation, which, because men are wicked, is broken at every opportunity for their own utility (The Prince, p. 66). Machiavelli here makes several ascertations regarding human nature, some similar to the beliefs presented by his first quote. First that the affection and trustworthiness of men is constantly on a tipping scale, in affluent times men can be trusted and are capable of love towards others, whereas when harsh times befall men, then will act to deceive and revert back to their selfish nature in order to gain a leg up in society. In reference to the chain of obligation being broken, Machiavelli is stating that it is human nature for men to break the ties which bind them to certain obligations when they see fit, and the breaking of these bonds shows how untrustworthy human beings truly are. Machiavelli yet again questions the trustworthiness and the self-interests of human nature by stating and if all men were good, this teaching would not be good; but because they are wicked and do not observe faith with you.. (The Prince, p. 69). Machiavelli again postulates that by human nature men are wicked, and in this instance in referring to the fact that men cannot be trusted because they do not share the same desires that the Prince may have. The idea that due to human nature men cannot be trusted again rears its ugly head. Finally I present a fourth and final quote from Machiavelli in regards to his thoughts of human nature: Truly it is a very natural and ordinary thing to desire to acquire, and always, when men do it who can, they will be praised or not blamed; but when they cannot, and wish to do it anyway, here lie the error and the blame. (The Prince, p. 14-15) Machiavelli again takes aim at the innate human desire to acquire wealth and material possessions for himself, but also at those who attempt to obtain such things. Another idea presented here is that one aspect of human nature is to glorify those who can achieve their goals, while at the same time admonishing those who, for some circumstance, werent able to achieve a certain goal. This statement says a lot regarding human nature, in that through achievement of goals one might obtain some sort of power, and it is human nature to admire any form of power regardless of how it can about. Machiavellis opinion of human nature is one that is cynical and at times dreadful, but in referencing his beliefs to the modern day acts of those in America, I dont think he was far off. 1. ) Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan https://reserves. lib. ncsu. edu/reservesViewer. php? reserve=158326 Accessed 2/22/10 2. ) Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago, IL: The U of Chicago P, 1998. Print.

Sporting Violence Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Sporting Violence - Essay Example h a hockey stick, with a blade or butt, was not a reasonable practice and fell outside the ambit of the implied consent.† (Supra note 25 at 128) and the accused was found guilty of overreacting. Major league baseball considers the commissioner to be the final arbiter of disputes between the clubs and the league and also gives it the authority to impose punishments, much like the NBA and the NHL. (Major League Agreement Art I. (1988) These powers are the result of the uniform player contract and the collective bargaining agreement, that establishes the disciplinary authority of both the team and the commissioner. (CBA of NBA, art 23; exhibit â€Å"standard club rules†) The role of the state and police, along with the courts in restricting sporting violence can be of a limited nature, and the last recourse. This position is taken, based on the fact that rough play is a part of the game, and the competitive edge coupled with the rush of adrenaline, may make players indulge in violent acts. The judges, who are called upon to arbitrate are familiar with the mentality of a sportsperson, and they may not be aware of the unspoken rules of conduct, which are a part of all sports. The role of law as arbiter, comes into focus because when a player steps over the line, if his action is not castigated by the games governing authority because â€Å"where there are obvious infractions of the criminal law, the authorities are duty bound to take whatever action is necessary to prevent a repetition of such conduct.† (R v. Henderson [1976] The court in Hackbart v.Cincinnati Bengel Inc.( Hackbart v Cincinnati Bengal Inc. 601 F2d 516 (19th Cic 1979) said ‘courts are ill suited to decide different social questions and to determine what is an acceptable level of conduct on what is much like a ‘battlefield.† and so just as there are a separate set of laws for the army it is not unreasonable to put sportspersons and sporting violence under the purview of their disciplinary bodies,

Corporate governance and business ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 5000 words

Corporate governance and business ethics - Essay Example They are respecting and encouraging the shareholder rights, protecting the interests of all stakeholders, performing the board’s responsibilities properly, following integrity and ethics, and having transparency in transactions. Business ethics too has become an important subject at academic level and also within major organisations. This interest in business ethics is visible in the big organisations’ evident emphasis on promoting non-economic social values. In simple terms, business ethics aims at handling situations where there is a possibility of business going unethical. In other words, as businesses function in social and natural environment, they are supposed to be accountable towards the environment and society they exist in. In the present business climate where there are multinational giants, the paths chosen by these companies have huge impact on the lives of people. There are a number of subjects that come under the purview of general business ethics. The fi rst one is corporate social responsibility that deals with the ethical rights among companies and also towards society. In addition, it deals with the moral responsibilities and rights that exist between a company and its stakeholders. Another matter is the relation among different companies, especially during takeovers, and espionage. Another factor is the issues associated with corporate leadership, and political contributions by the company. A look into history will prove that the rise in interest in business ethics has its beginning in 1970s. Before the world wars, the business world was full of unethical practices ranging from colonialism and slavery. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the obligation of a company to be responsible to all of the stakeholders in its operation to achieve sustainable development, not only economically, but also in social and environmental dimensions. In other words, corporate responsibility means the responsibility of the company towards all its stakeholders ranging from owners, investors, employees, customers, government, suppliers, competitors and the community. In the words of Kotler, and Lee (2008, p.3), corporate social responsibility is the commitment of a company to improve community well-being through its operations and contributions. Nokia: The Company in Concern The company that is considered for analysis of corporate governance is Nokia. The company had its beginning in the year 1865 in South-Western Finland as a forest industry enterprise, and the founder was a mining engineer named Fredrik Idestam. By the beginning of 1989s, Nokia strengthened its hold in telecommunications and consumer electronics markets. As Parthasarthy (2006, p. 338) reports, there were number of acquisitions ranging from Mobira, Salora, Televa and Luxor. In addition, it acquired parts of the German Standard Elektrik Lorenz, French company Oceanic, and Dutch company NKF; and in the case of corporate governance, Nokia follows Helsinki, N ew York, Stockholm, and Frankfurt stock exchange rules and recommendations as applicable (ibid). The company runs in accordance with the provisions of Finnish Companies Act, and the control and management of Nokia, the Articles of Association, is divided among the shareholders, the Board of Directors, the President and the Nokia