To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee Essay Example for Free

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee Essay In To Kill a Mockingbird,1 Harper Lee tells of the terrible wrong of racism in an Alabama town.   To avoid resort to an off-putting dogmatic or preaching style, she uses as her narrator Scout.   Turning six at the novel’s beginning, Jean Louise â€Å"Scout† Finch is a precocious tomboy (81), intelligent (17), decent, and brave, and yet innocent of the complex, sometimes dangerous adult world. (19-22)   She must try to understand why her father, a respected attorney, makes himself a â€Å"nigger-lover† by defending a black man accused of raping a white woman (74-75, 85-86, 87); why, a pacifist, he is called on to shoot a mad dog. (92-97)   Jem, older and more knowing, is a vehicle to help Scout grow up. (58)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Atticus is â€Å"civilized in his heart.† (98)   Scout gradually comes to understand the courage and decency that entails, and the costs sometimes involved.   Atticus acknowledges the racist code of his community; he cannot change it.   But he looks beyond labels to see people for what they are. (75)   Calpurnia is as much a mother to his children as she is his servant. (6, 24-25)   Above all, Atticus has principles:   the presumption of innocence; the right to counsel; the duty to one’s conscience. (75-76)   Holding to these, he tries to pass them on to his children.   (91-93)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Arthur â€Å"Boo† Radley, the ghost-like figure who is both a terror and a delight to the children (8-13, ch. 5-6), is a â€Å"mockingbird.†Ã‚   He harms no one, and wants only to be left alone.   Lee portrays beautifully the small ways in which the children reach out to him (58-63), how he responds to them (71-72), and in the end, the delicacy with which Scout protects his dignity allowing him to take her arm and appear the gentleman, even as she walks him home. (278)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Although it is often overlooked, there is beauty in the episode of Mrs. Dubose.   Fighting addiction to morphine, irrational in her pain, struggling in silence, and ultimately prevailing against great difficulty, she earns high and deeply felt praise from Atticus: I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand.   It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.   You rarely win, but sometimes you do.   Mrs. Dubose won, all ninety-eight pounds of her.   According to her views, she died beholden to nothing and nobody.   She was the bravest person I ever knew.   (112) SOURCE: Lee, Harper, To Kill A Mockingbird.   Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:   J. B. Lippincott Co., 1960.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   1Because this is a review essay, in which To Kill a Mockingbird is the single source cited, in-text citations will give only the page numbers, rather than clutter the paper with unnecessary redundancies.

The Human Perception of Pain in Conjunction with the Mind-Body Problem

The Human Perception of Pain in Conjunction with the Mind-Body Problem There is more research surfacing supporting the notion that people can control their pain. What is left under-examined is the notion of whether the pain is mediated by the brain, mind, or both. We all know that pain is an instinctive "sense" if you will, necessary to the survival of all living beings. Without pain, it would go unrecognized and exacerbate to the point of death. Pain is a protective mechanism essential to survival. There are three important claims here: One is that pain is actually a perception. The second, is the brain mediates the suppression of pain through a "gate" in the spinal cord. Lastly, since pain is a perception, the mind may decide the degree to which the "gate" is open, which therefore influences to amount of pain reaching the brain. Recent research provides evidence that certain brain structures mediate the spinal cord gate. Still controversial is whether receptivity to pain is biological in origin and completely dependent on the brain, or whether the min d, the entity in an individual responsible for thought, and feelings, conscious or unconscious, controls the nervous system and in the end manipulates one's perception of pain. Pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage" (1). When pain is described in these terms we can see that pain is a perception, sort of like seeing and hearing. When pain is processed there are a number of brain structures activated, commonly referred to as the "central pain matrix" (2). It may seem irrelevant to delve into pain signal activation in the brain since it is seemi... ...that one's entire perception of pain may be conscious in origin and simply correlate to the mechanisms of the brain, rather than stem from just the brain entirely. References 1)Pain Anatomy http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/~ranney/painanat.html 2)The Human Perception of Pain http://dubinserver.colorado.edu/prj/nva/humanperception.html 3)Brain Pain Pathways http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/Psych289/Biotutorials/19/intro.shtml?sso=true 4)Modification of pain within the spinal cord http://www.manbit.com/obstetspain/obnlp3.htm 5)The Skeptics Dictionary http://skepdic.com/mind.html 6)Mind and Body Interactions http://www.mindbody.org/ 7)Mind-Body-Medicine http://www.mind-body-medicine.com/ 8)Mind and Body Wellness http://membrane.com/ncata/lynn/ 9) Carlson, Neil R., Physiology of Behavior. Needham Heights: A Pearson Education Company, 2001.

General Hideki Tojo: war criminal Essay

World War II is one of the events in the modern history of mankind which is looked upon with mixed reactions considering what was lost and was created because of this war. This was a showdown not just of superpowers, but also of the most influential leaders in different countries. One of these leaders is Hideki Tojo of Japan, who led the country and its soldiers in the Pacific theater of operations during World War II versus Allied forces led by the United States. This was a set of many different battles, which, on a whole, was deadly and costly for both camps. Many would say that General Hideki Tojo was just a man doing his job consistent with the political, economic and military directions of the country. Like any other soldier and leader, Tojo was expected to make decisions that will appear harsh and inconsiderate to human life, but is this really the truth? Many dare challenge this. They believe that just like any other individual, Tojo always had options and choices and he was never forced to just one course of action that he did not wanted or approved. The truth is that he has options. How he selected his own course of actions especially during World War II speaks a lot about how Tojo is the archetypal villain and evil, in consideration to this man’s values as reflected in his goals, ambitions, actions and perspective. Bringing a villain like General Hideki Tojo to trial for his evil during World War II is a case that will be strongly supported by many different important reasons and justifications why such accusations are real and suitable for some like Tojo. These reasons and justifications would be laid out, spread and explained to ascertain Tojo’s undeniable complicity and role in atrocities and undesirable actions during World War II. Hideki Tojo’s trial regarding his military and political actions during World War II will feature the discussion of several different proofs that will establish Tojo and his role in these atrocities and unacceptable acts even during war time. There are four important aspects that serve as proof to establish Hideki Tojo’s acts of atrocities and unacceptable war time behavior during World War II. It led many people to believe that he was indeed the villain that endangered and put to slaughter not just the lives of the enemy but lives of his own men as well. The first proof of Tojo’s evil is his influence and active, conscious and direct role in the hostile imperialism of Japan. Tojo is described as â€Å"one of the most aggressive of the Japanese imperialists (Keegan, Wheatcroft 291). † Of course, history will show that no effort at expansion and imperialism is not without violence. The fact that this is expected, it does not mean that Tojo and his imperialist expansion-related violence, crimes and hostility will be accepted. On the contrary, if Tojo was indeed in favor of humanity, he should have learned from the lessons of the past like the imperialist tendencies of Europeans in the past. He should have seen this could result to death and bloodshed. He should have never subjected his people and other people in such condition wherein death and destruction is the main result. However, the self-centered, greedy and power hungry Tojo moved forward with his dreams of expanding by controlling other countries and territories through the use of military force. This resulted to the death of many people, Japanese and non Japanese alike. It was a deadly and lethal combination. Tojo had access to power and was war hungry. He looked at war as a necessity for Japan at the time, which is disputable even today (Benford 119). â€Å"Tojo has assumed for himself the three posts of prime minister, war minister and chief of army staff and was totally responsible for the conduct of the war and was determined that only war could bring Japan what it rightfully deserved (Benford 119). † Wohlstetter expressed the importance of this development (Wohlstetter 324). â€Å"Tojo has thus concentrated enormous power in his own hands, far more than any Premier of modern times. He is jingoistic and anti-foreign, particularly anti-Russian. He has strong pro-Axis leanings (Wohlstetter 324). † History has dubbed the attack on Pearl Harbor as an ignominy which will go down in history books as a dastardly act that will be continuously frowned upon. Because of the style and approach, Japan, and particularly Tojo, who was Prime Minister at that time (Gudykunst 276), took in this particular incident. It resulted to the deaths of many individuals; many of those are non-combatants and innocent civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbor is considered as one of the most evil of all forms of attacks during war time history and in World War II. It is an unforgettable and unacceptable act on the part of the Japan. If this is the case, then what does this say about the people who conceived and planned and executed it, among the many high ranking top brass of Japan to approve it is Tojo? It is Evil, pure evil. â€Å"Tojo ordered Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, and then led his nation in war for three years (Weston 182). † It is one thing to cause death in the battlefield, but it is another to resort to killing even non combatants and civilians just to inflict damage to the enemy and to help one side come closer to victory (it is explained this way because even though Japan’s attack was a serious blow to United States, Japan, in the end, did not win). In this event, Tojo resorted to a Machiavellian thinking. He believed that the end justifies the means. However, in the end, it was completely unfortunate that despite the sacrifices used as a means, they still were not able to achieve the ends. In this perspective, how will the sacrifice of men be seen, considering the failure to achieve the objective? Tojo’s military leadership that resulted to the deaths of many soldiers did not automatically make him an evil leader. What made him an evil leader is the fact that he did not conducted himself accordingly. His actions are often irrational to the point that it is immoral and unethical even during the state of war among nations. Pearl Harbor is an excellent example of this condition. Tojo’s hands are stained with the blood of the innocent, people who should have not been directed and accorded with hostility. They are nonetheless victimized by a man whose evil has become legendary – and heavily criticized – even before World War II would end with Japan accepting defeat eventually. The evil of Tojo is not just limited to Pearl Harbor. As a powerful and influential man who directed military actions during World War II, Tojo is responsible for the lives of men. These were military and non-military people that were hurt or killed throughout World War II in places that Japanese soldiers and soldiers controlled and conscripted by Japan operated in. It is no secret that after World War II, investigations about many different war crimes resulted in the surfacing of information regarding the presence of these atrocities. Even though this are undertaken by Tojo’s underlings, it was Tojo who is responsible in grooming and managing men who should know how to handle themselves admirably during war. Tojo’s lack of that same sense reflected in how his followers acted. As they say, the actions of members reflect the characteristics of the leader. Tojo is evil because he was directly or indirectly responsible for the acts of atrocities committed during the duration of World War II in places Japan controlled or fought in. Soon, investigators were able to fully judge beyond reasonable doubt that responsibility for war crimes rests on the shoulders of Tojo, for which the punishment is death. In the end, Tojo was arrested, and proven as a war criminal (Benford 119). For the enemies of Japan during the World War II, it is easy for them to say that Japan and its leaders are bad because of their acts of hostility towards them (Japan’s enemy). The real extent of evil inside a man is not found in how he treats his enemies, since hostilities are expected between and among enemies. The true evil is found in how a man appreciates the lives of the man that follows him and how he uses the faith and trust that his followers give him. It is in this last aspect of the proof of Tojo’s evil that one can truly see that Tojo is not evil in the eyes of his enemies, but is evil in consideration to what he had his men undergo, do and suffer. The achievement of an imperial domination which was close to impossible and was something that Japan as a country wanted but what the selected few desired for themselves. These individuals include Tojo. In analysis, Japan and its position economically and politically at that time allowed them many other options. For one, the battle was in Europe among old and new enemies. The reason why it spread in Asia and the Pacific is because of Tojo’s megalomaniac tendencies that endangered the lives of many men, not to mention the deaths of thousands and even millions of others as well. It is not easy to look of Hideki Tojo without bias, and why not? His curriculum vitae, during World War II, is proof of his responsibility in the military actions that resulted to death, destruction and acts of atrocity, among others. History and related literature gave Tojo many different titles besides the one’s he officially owned at one time, titles which he earned because of his actions. For example, he was described as â€Å"supreme war lord (Butow 440)†, and not just military leader. Notice the impact that the writer was going for when using the term â€Å"war lord† in consideration to what was being implied and how the writer was trying to describe Tojo more accurately and vividly with the use of such term. Evans described Tojo as â€Å"an arch enemy (Evans 329)† and placed Tojo alongside other unpopular megalomaniac who was also responsible for death, destruction and atrocity including Hitler and Mussolinni. He was described as standing side by side and among the most hated men during that time. â€Å"During World War II, the three most hated men in the world were Hitler, Mussolini and General Tojo Hideki (Weston 182). † Hill believes that he was an aggressor similar to Hitler (Hill 86). â€Å"Hitler and Tojo were planning every imaginable step and they had jointly executed a policy of world aggression (Hill 86). † Works cited Benford, Timothy B. Pearl Harbor Amazing Facts! Utah: American Book Publishers, 2001. Butow, Robert Charles Joseph. Tojo and the Coming of the War. California: Stanford University Press, 1961. Evans, David. Ramblin’ on my mind: new perspectives on the blues. Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2008. Gudykunst, William B. Communication Yearbook. California: Routledge, 2002. Hill, Richard F. Hitler attacks Pearl Harbor: why the United States declared war on Germany. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. Keegan, John and Andrew Wheatcroft. Who’s who in military history: from 1453 to the present day. London: Routledge, 1996. Weston, Mark. Giants of Japan: The Live of Japan’s Most Influential Men and Women. New York: Kodansha America, 2002. Wohlstetter, Roberta. Pearl Harbor: warning and decision. California: Stanford University Press, 1962.

John Stuart Mill And Emmanuel Kant - 916 Words

John Stuart Mill and Emmanuel Kant would have very easy explanations on their views on the following case: Amy is very hungry, and considers the following plan: walk into a restaurant, order and eat the food, and walk out without paying. The wrongness of the act is practically self-explanatory. It is wrong to get away with a service that needs to be paid for. Aside from the fact that such act is illegal, because after all, Amy would technically be stealing from the restaurant, it is also morally wrong. Following the consideration of whether the act is wrong, Mill has a better explanation of why it is than Kant. Kant’s approach to morality does not seem to be as supportive as Mill’s. He begins his morality theory by the concept of good will. Here he explains how good will can be â€Å"good without qualifications.† (Kant 393) He continues to explain that will is good in it, not only because of the effects it has, but also because of the quality. The quality of will is what determines if an action is a moral one or not. Following this, Kant indicates that commands and imperatives are the two important factors that help the will. The imperatives are set into two different types, which are categorical and hypothetical. Between these two, he personally thinks that only categorical imperatives can be part of the laws of morality. He explains that the reason why is because categorical imperatives are what start up the self-will, hypothetical imperatives don’t. They depend highly on theShow MoreRelatedEssay Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism1729 Words   |  7 Pages including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utilityRead MoreMoral Theories Of Human Rights1433 Words   |  6 Pagesimportant human rights represented in the philosophy of human rights. Key words Understand, Philosophy, Human rights, Reality, Moral theories Introduction The philosophy of human rights was coined by the philosophies of Emmanuel Kant, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill. These authors advocated for human rights in their philosophies. They brought in the aspect of political freedom, inequality and liberty within a society and also they dealt with the reality of moral theories by puttingRead MoreThe Mill Vs. Kant : An Evaluation Of Their Approaches Towards Ethics1730 Words   |  7 Pages Mill vs. Kant: An Evaluation of their Approaches Towards Ethics John Stuart Mill and Emmanuel Kant both have very distinct ideals and principles. Though they were both philosophers within the same century, but their ideals did not align with each other. Mill focused more on overall happiness, while Kant focused more on the reasons people have for committing certain actions. This is important because it makes the validity of actions and their moral worth put in question. The problem being addressedRead MoreAlexander : The Human Resource895 Words   |  4 Pagesback the money, and provide for her daughter if Alexander does not report her. MILL Philosopher John Stuart Mill values the idea of â€Å"Utilitarianism.† Utilitarianism is the belief that actions are right, if it is beneficial to the majority, or the â€Å"greater good.† Another exception to utilitarianism is, as long as there is an absence of pain that will result in maximising happiness, then the action is justified. Mill argues that the major source of unhappiness is caused by selfish intent. StealingRead More The Greatest Happiness Principle Essay1376 Words   |  6 Pagesassess the concept of the principle of utility as given by John Stuart Mill. In the essay â€Å"What Utilitarianism Is† #, Mill presents the theory of Utilitarianism, which he summarizes in his â€Å"utility† or â€Å"greatest happiness principle† # (Mill 89). Mill’s focus is based on an action’s resulting â€Å"happiness,† # pleasure and absences of pain, or â€Å"unhappiness,† # discomfort and the nonexistence of contentment, r ather than the intentions involved (Mill 89). After evaluating Mill’s principle, I will then endRead MoreContrasting the Ethical Theories of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill1950 Words   |  8 PagesThe purpose of this essay is to contrast the ethical theories of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, I will look at some possible criticisms that both Kant and Mill could take on each other’s theory and how each one would respond to the criticisms. In the end I will make a personal assessment of the theories in line with the criticisms and responses from both Kant and Mill. The foundation of Kant’s ethical theory is what he calls the categorical imperative and this is one of the important aspectsRead More Nothing Can Be Good or Evil in Itself Essay903 Words   |  4 Pagesfavorable character, wholesome, and virtuous. (Merriam-Webster)   A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes--because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alone-that is, good in itself. (Kant)   In essence, the traditional sense of good is an act done only with the benefit of others in mind rather than for ones own personal interests.   However, for society to view this as good, an act must be intended to benefit society as a whole as wellRead MoreCompare Utilitarian and Deontological Theory1821 Words   |  8 Pagesphilosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). According to Kant, it is the only way of making moral decisions. Another definition for deontology is that it is an approach to the justification in which priority is given to the fundamental principles (Thompson et.al 2000;364) Utilitarianism is an act which is right when it promotes happiness and is wrong when it promotes unhappiness. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was the founder of this theory and John Mill (1706-1873) became the advocate. John Bentham (1748-1832)Read MoreIntroduction to Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Deontology1382 Words   |  6 Pagesmeans to an end†. In the first set of questions listed at the end of chapter six I was encountered with a statement from Emmanuel Kant that revolved around the topic of â€Å"good will†. Kant read, â€Å"Actions are morally good only if they are done because of a good will† What Kant is saying is that consequences don’t make an action morally good, but on the other hand, good will does. Kant describes good will as a respect for the moral law expressed through ones intentions (Rosenstand, 283). The person mustRead MoreThe Legal Ethics Of The Unlicensed Engineer Essay1349 Words   |  6 Pagesinvolved. Initially, an analysis of the Lander actions and defense are primarily based upon the utilitarianism school of thought. John Stuart Mill (1806- 1873) stipulates that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness, in this case, denotes pleasure and hence the absence of pain (J.S. Mills, Utilitarianism, ed. Oskar Piest, Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs- Merrill, 1957 p.10). Therefore, his actions are geared towards