Tuesday, December 14. 2010
Doesn't Duncan deserve to die?
This is, perhaps, a morbid question.
Let’s explore it further.
We know that in order to be a successful ruler, a king from olden times needed to be able to do three things:
1) Recognize and defeat threats to his country and his throne
2) Earn the loyalty of his subjects by behaving virtuously (no hoarding the rings!)
3) Produce male heirs – as many as possible
The first qualification requires intelligence – a matter of enlightenment and perception. You must correctly distinguish trustworthy parties from those that need monitoring; you must decide how to respond to your enemies (do you follow the old adage of keeping your enemies closer than your friends, or do you try to overwhelm them by force instead of playing nice?); and you must be a sound tactician in order to avoid wasting lives.
The second qualification requires strength of character – a matter of personal strength and understood identity – because kings must resist the obvious temptations of power.
The third qualification is more of an avoidance of a perceived flaw than anything else. If a king has no sons, the country is perpetually at risk; its security is threatened whenever its ruler is under fire, because the loss of the king would result in a power vacuum at the head of the state.
Kings who could not meet all three qualifications inevitably wound up dying young. It’s not a harsh or cynical assessment. Rather, it’s a matter of inevitability. A king who fails on one or more of these counts will be a weaker ruler, and someone else will rise up against them, either from within or without. It’s also a matter of necessity; a country was probably better off in the long run if it risked its short-term stability to dispose of an ineffective king. (Think of Denmark under Heremod vs. under Shield, Beow, Halfdane, and Hrothgar.) In this way, the needs of the many – which may outweigh the needs of the few, or the one – are best served over time.
Good kings thrive; bad kings die. As kings, they deserve it.
Duncan certainly meets the demands of the third qualification, considering that he produces multiple sons. He also seems to be a model of good behavior and virtuous rule, his oddly passionate bloodlust (visible when he receives reports of slaughters and executions) notwithstanding.
But the first qualification…oh, how the first qualification proves problematic for Duncan.
Let’s look for a moment past the fact that Duncan didn’t see Norway’s massive attack coming. Let’s ignore the fact that Duncan wholeheartedly trusted the Thane of Cawdor, blind to a threat to his nation as it sat across the table from him. And let’s even ignore the fact that Duncan completely misses Macbeth’s plot to kill him, or that he so quickly places his trust in a new Thane of Cawdor so shortly after the old one betrayed him. All of these mistakes count against Duncan, because all of these mistakes place Scotland at grave risk – the very thing a king exists to prevent. But there’s something far simpler we can notice, a black mark on Duncan’s first qualification that’s so obvious that it’s easy to miss.
When we begin the play, Duncan’s citizens are already rebelling against him.
Shakespeare glosses over the reason that people have risen up against the crown, and most people simply accept that the king must put down the rebellion because his perspective is the first we really see, or figure that the Bard includes the uprising because he’s going by the “facts” in Holinshed’s famed history of Scotland. We accept that the king is in a different place because he needs to be kept safe, and don’t worry that his main source of information from the battlefield is from a wounded fighter who’s quickly bleeding out as he speaks; we don’t question whether this is any way to lead a nation or wage a war for its soul. We simply turn the page, already accepting that the rebellion against Duncan is wrong without even finding out what the fight is about. That’s awfully trusting of us, especially when the rebellion serves to further underscore Duncan’s complete (and soon-to-be-fatal) blindness to threats.
Shakespeare may have glossed over the reasons for the rebellion because they didn’t interest him, or because time spent on them would distract from his morality play. However, it’s more likely that he didn’t mention them because doing so threatens the play’s foundations – for in order to buy into the play’s moral conflict, we have to like Duncan, and must in turn condemn Macbeth for killing such a kind and effective leader.
But standards are standards, and Duncan fails to meet them.
Good kings thrive; bad kings die.
They deserve it.
My indictment of Duncan is somewhat tongue-in-cheek; after all, even Macbeth admits that Duncan is a good king, which leaves my attack on his qualifications – not to mention his right to live – ringing a bit hollow. But I do think that it’s fun to think about texts in this way, and I find that my internal debates over the kind of issues we so often take for granted almost always lead me to a better understanding of the world a book creates, as well as the characters who populate it.
For what it’s worth, I rather like Duncan, at least as much as I can like a character who’s alive for barely more than twenty minutes of the play. I do think that his blindness to the threat Macbeth poses is a fatal flaw, but that’s kind of the point – Duncan’s goodness and eagerness to trust those close to him blinds him to the (somewhat conflicted/ambiguous) evil Macbeth represents.
However, today is not the day to discuss love, trust, and betrayal. For now, we turn our attention back to the nature of human goodness, and to the simple question we keep asking but never bury:
If someone offered you comfort – happiness – in exchange for your independence…would you take it?
It’s a serious question, and one that needs to be asked whenever we try to analyze Lady Macbeth. At first, we can’t understand her naked, seemingly unquenchable thirst for power. After all, what’s so bad about her life? She’s married to someone successful, seems to enjoy good health, and has been blessed with intelligence to spare.
Yet she is not free, at least not as a fully independent agent. We often forget this because we usually see her only when Macbeth is around, and she strikes a powerful contrast to her easily influenced husband. But that’s the extent of her power; she can manipulate Macbeth, and little else.
Consider her perspective. If you had been denied independence for your entire life, wouldn’t you thirst for influence just as strongly? As young adults, don’t you look forward to the days of controlling your own destinies with anticipation?
Lady Macbeth is twisted, hateful, and greedy. Shakespeare’s portrayal of her, groundbreaking as it was, smacks of misogyny (he toughens her by emphasizing her masculinity), and it is unlikely he wanted anyone in his audience to feel sorry for her.
Yet when you consider her circumstances, when you study her in the context of the times, when you realize she is a brilliant individual who is a prisoner to her society’s marginalization of her gender – and whose potential, and life, have therefore been squandered – her most hateful qualities seem a bit more understandable. In fact, she may even emerge as a slightly (or oddly) sympathetic figure.
Reminds you a bit of Grendma, doesn’t it? After all, the best villains are the ones who make us shiver – not because we fear them, but because we fear we can understand them.
We’ll soon discuss (or, depending on when you read this, already discussed) whether Macbeth or Lady Macbeth is “more evil.” I would say that both are capable of great evil; however, I would also confess that I’m not sure that the capability of evil action indicates that a person is, in fact, evil. After all, aren’t all human beings capable of evil? Shouldn’t we evaluate the “evilness” of a person on the basis of their actions?
If we do so, I’d like to point out that the individual many feel is more evil, at least at first (Lady Macbeth) never harms a single living being over the course of the play. Meanwhile, Macbeth racks up a fairly impressive body count, and he seems to be a more effective killer of friends and innocents than of enemy warriors. But there’s always that awful point to consider: Macbeth resolved not to kill before being bullied into it.
Who is more evil – the planner, or the killer?
Perhaps some of you can see where I’m going with this. (Others may have no idea what I’m doing, which is also OK).
Clearly, neither Macbeth nor his wife are “good” people, although you can easily argue that Macbeth has many good qualities. (Conversely, we wonder if Duncan really is as good as Shakespeare claims he is.)
But we’ve never really established where the “tipping point” – the line separating “good but flawed” from “better avoid him/her, because that’s an evil person” – lies, despite repeated attempts to figure out what “good” really means.
We recognize that tipping point instantly (or should, in Duncan’s case). Well, how can you tell the difference – in other words, how can you tell that some people are good? Can we blame Duncan for his blindness?
Do our choices determine our “nature,” or is something nebulous inside of us (a conscience, a soul, etc.) more responsible? Is it possible for a person’s “nature” to change – for a good person to become evil, or for an evil person to become good?
Can you conclusively say that you are a “good” person? Are you somewhere between “good” and “bad,” leaning in a certain direction? What sort of criteria are you basing your response on – your actions, your thoughts, or both? Do you believe you will become a better person as you age, as you gain experience and knowledge, as you live, love, and learn – or will you decline?
Finally, do you believe that other people can influence your “goodness,” for better or for worse? If so, how?
Before you post, jot down answers to all of the questions in the section directly above (even if they’re just a couple of words) on a separate sheet of paper or Word window. Take a look at your answers. Are your views consistent? (If they aren’t, it’s fine – you have time to reconcile them with one another, especially through writing this blog!)
This post is due at 11:59pm on Thursday, December 16th.
Remember, you are not required to respond to every prompt! You may respond to whichever prompt(s) you prefer. If you'd like to respond to something else in the post, you may. If you'd like to post a more free-flowing meditation on the topic at hand - love, in this case - fire away.
Please try to post insightful, specific, and polished pieces. Your post should be at least two seven-sentence paragraphs long, and punctuation, grammar, and mechanics all count towards your grade. Compose your replies carefully, and always remember to state the why for every what!
For this post, written feedback for two of your peers is required! Congratulate them, praise them, ask them questions...reach out! There’s no comment limit for this thread, so if you feel like talking to your peers, follow your instincts! (You can even do this for anonymous posters; they’ll be reading the thread to see how you respond.) Check your work to see if someone left feedback for you, and start conversations with your readers – and classmates!
Write well, think well, and – as always – good luck.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
In the case of Macbeth, his wife or the plotter is more evil because not only did she think of killing the king she forced her husband to do it, when he didn't want to. If he did it on his own free will he would be more evil, but because he was forced, hesitated, and regretted doing this sin he is less evil than his wife. In other cases the kilker and the plotter being more evil thab the other is interchangable, but in this case the killer is more innocent than the plotter. The plotter made the killer commit a sin he would have never done on his own making the plotter more sinister.
In our lives we treasure independence because with it we are able to look for and attain comfort and happiness for ourselves. We want to be independent from our parents because the make us do things that we don't want to do because it may sacrifice our comfort and happiness even if it's for our own good. Without our independence we think we have have lived by the rules of others and therefore can't be happy, but in this deal the trading of your key to only a chance of achieving happiness and comfort can directly grant you happiness and comfort without the hassle. If someone asked me if I would trade my independence for happiness and comfort, I would first refuse, and most people would too, but why? Having independence may end up granting us happiness, but with his deal its guaranteed. Sure it more satisfying if you find your own happiness through independence, but with this deal you are already comfortable and happy, with a hundred percent chance. I would trade and chance at happiness for the guarantee of it. This way, I wound reach the prized destination without the painful drive.
Independence is what makes us who we are and also brings us happiness. Having control over our own lives allows us to find what we enjoy doing.
I find that many are not quite as independent as they think they are, because they might be influenced by others without noticing. I`d say this is the case with Macbeth being unable to completely say "no" to his wife.
I agree with your first paragragh.
If the planner didn't set up everything, the killer can never commit a sin unless himself become a planner.
Planner is the starter and killer is the one to finish it.
I agree that the wife in Macbeth is more evil. But it may be different in other situations in real life.
I agree that his wife is more evil and that Macbeth isn't as bad as she is because if she didn't push him to kill the king, I honestly believe he would have done the right thing. This is just a example of how sometimes someone can change from good to evil, and how strong influences really are.
I definitely agree with the plotter being more evil because in this case lady Macbeth had the thought to kill Duncan and like the old saying goes it's the thought that counts.
I enjoy reading your second paragraph, because i can totally connect with what you are saying. Independence is good, but in return we must sacrifice the comfort and security we have at home.
Yes because having independence to find happiness puts us in uncomfortable position because we dont know if we will be able to vet a hold of it.
I personally think that the planner is more evil, because usually the killer just follows “the plan”, he does not think of it, that much. For example people pay other people (murderers) to kill right? So, most of the time the killer does not even know his/ her victim he/she just gets the work done and collect whatever they were promised they would get.
I think people “differentiate” a person from being good or bad by the actions they make; but that is when you see them, who will provide you with prove that, they are good/ bad when you are not around to see what they are doing. Just like a mother taking care of her kids, she cannot be with them 24/7, there is going to be a time spare where they could be as evil as they want and she would not be there to see it(which is where they get the older siblings in trouble (; ).
I think that our conscience influences a lot in a decision making, we do have the opportunity to choose, but we do it taking in account the way we would manage the situation and basically attacking(making your decision)it from there; again anyway the final decision is made and you chose it so the choices determine your nature. Even though many things influenced your decision in the end you chose what to do.
I believe it is possible for a person’s “nature” to change EVIL GOOD; they have to honestly want to change, it does not matter in what direction. I just know that it would not be possible if the person does not what to change. Is like trying to change an elder person, after a while they start acting like little kids; the only difference other than the physical one is that, they’ve already formed their “identity”. And I would say almost impossible to change them, because in some way they are wiser than us (young people), since we are barely starting our journey.
Didn't finish sorry :S
I believe I in between what a “good” and “bad” person are ( my criteria), I base my response in the way I handle decisions, I usually think how is it going to influence or affect the people around me, but mostly the people I love. There are sometimes when I can be blinded by my impulses and do not even think about the consequences of my actions, and I end up hurting the ones I love, I’m working on that.
I believe I’ll become a better person in the “near future”, because every time I “fall” I learn from it and get up stronger . With every experience acquired, my knowledge expands and I’m able to analyze things more deeply than before; for me that means that I made some progress.
I think people can influence your “goodness” but, they are never going to be able to make the FINAL DECISION instead of you. Their influence could be compared to an advice; it can be good as well as bad. After listening to the advice you might analyze it, maybe see it, but in the end you are going to decide if you want to take it and put it in progress or not; and even when you did not take it, that would not make you a bad person.
I would say that if you rather decide not to take any advice that is ok, a little stubborn but not bad. I think that would mean that you like to explore things on your own and figure out the results, from actions that you decided to take.
ADVICE: It is always good to at least listen to what people have to say, maybe it won’t help you but it will help them get it out.
You can take that or just ignore it.
I agree that we should always listen to what others have to say. Even though sometimes we are stubborn about our own beliefs we should still take their advice into consideration.
I agree with the fact that we will always have the final decision on things. The things others say to us can only affect us if we choose to let them affect us.
I also think that in the end it's yourself who determines the goodness. People may influence me but it's me myself that determines what I do.
Your opinion about the killer vs. the planner is interesting but I still find the idea of being more evil perplexing. We can certainly agree that both the unintentional killer and the intentional planner were both crucial to the action itself for the disappearance of either would lead to no killing for Duncan. It is true that the planner was wrong in initiating the plan, but is the killer without fault for his actions? Can we not blame Macbeth for being ignorant?
You are right but, still He just had the thought of being "THE KING" and is "tempting" I guess to have all that power.
As in for me i would not do it, because I am not the kind of person who likes to rule others, again everyone has their own opinion, and reason to their actions.
Killers are action, planner are something like a brain. I think planners are eviler than killers yet also more good than we probably think they are. By some strange philosophy, 'live' is only 'evil' spelled backward which gotten so because of things like planners. Planners, even though not experimenting directly with action but thought, will probably be exposed to some greatest evil. Thoughts are potentially eviler and more important than actions because they are reactions opening doors to curiosity, happiness, awe and fear laly-laly-etc. I can assume the chicken-and-egg theory here as either a god or aliens made everything with all-powerful power which the planner started everything, or big bang which an action started thought, so I can not base reason who is eviler on who the evil little seed is. At least not on blame. I think the dangerous evil in being a planner is power to bend construct a new timeline as power corrupts, the closest to acting as power itself. (Also by my rambling brain, if you also thought the planner was more evil, did you answer yes-- futile actions have meaning)
I think dang right a good person can become evil and an evil person to become good, otherwise where are the english-class definition heros. That's like the most awesomest things a human get and one of worst like dying maybe. If it couldn't have possibility, then this class is useless beside passing high-school and graduating. As Buzz Lightyear said, "To infinity and Beyond!". Let alone without math or physics terminology, well dang1-- no ones can really answer incorrectly which direction infinity is, I fall into a black hole and be in infinity, or eviler and eviler is infinity as negative infinity is gooder and gooder towards bad grammar. A person technically in theory can become anything they want to be, dead, alien or a person named Bob as I obviously believe everything changes (free choice is optional for this case). Also plus, the characters always stealing the attention are those double-agents-- Dark Vader, Zuko( the last airbender, cartoon one obviously), Beast (think disney) as changes of heart seem as one human triumph.
I think I'm more leaning towards a bad person as I don't say hi or hello to people in the halls though I have an exciting habit to think dodging around slow-walkers as a mariokart game, I like to procrastinate which apparently is horrible though I don't Hitler did it, I'm not afraid to say I'm a racist though not in a mean discrimination bad way-- I only started noticing there was other races really really late in life and can't figure out how to communicate, so either the alien or very watchful of my words way plus a few stero-types as most asian parents want their kids to be doctors, lawyer or anything with a great name and very well paid is my racism, and I'm in a very big debt with stealing oxygen with ozone gases. If I'm measuring in scales of deeds, I can't think of too many selfless 'good' deeds I did or do compared to the wonderfully big list of selfish 'bad' things I do or did (like procrastinating by watching a Potter musical thingy on youtube rather than study something somehow fun from school). I remember doing the blog to list ten little things done that changed the world, so I was mimicking everyone else on positive, positive changes I made. . so dang hard to think of them 9. I don't believe I will become a better person as I age because I believe in finding out when I get there. I'm certain I will become better in all sorts of way though, judge whatever 'better' is beside math. I will better in chaos I'm sure as more things to think about as I age. I will be better being less completely selfish because most jobs are group projects and failing might kill someone which usually isn't good. (unless you killed Voldermort or something). I will also have to choose to a better friend or rebel to death as I age.
I totally agree with your second paragraph, about how good people can become bad and vice versa. It happens in movies all the time, and I see it happen in real life as well.
Is eviler a word? Anyways I really like your second paragraph. Your references to Disney characters are awesome!
yes, eviler is not not a word. it exist by merriam-webster dictionary at least because I just checked.
I like what you said, "Killers are action, planner are something like a brain." The person who kills would be the action and the person who planned it out would be the brains of the whole thing. But in this case, I believe that both are evil.
People are who they are because of their mentors. Infants do not understand anything; the people around them teach them and influence their actions. Kids look up to older people as role models and mimic their actions. The influence kids receive molds them into clones of their role models. Kids that grow up with good influence become good when they are older. In J.D. Salinger’s The Cather in the Rye, Holden Caulfield was influenced by his surrounds to the point where he started to become disillusioned with life. His life was full of sorrow and he felt like committing suicide. However, Holden experienced hope because of his encounter with two nuns. These nuns are pure hearted good people and from them Holden experiences hope in life. Before he met the nuns, Holden was a miserably depressed kid that has given up on life. This shows that people are always changing depending on of their situation.
On the other hand, people’s influences can make one worse. Students at school are constantly pressured to disobey the rules and expectations of society. People get pressured to take drugs and they do it because of the influences they receive from people. Drugs are bad for the body and if people are influenced to do it then they are destroying their body. Peer pressure is something that is harmful because it makes people do things they would not normally do. The pressure from other people to take drugs is overpowering and everyone is affected by this never-ending problem. The influence from other people can be harmful and beneficial depending on the situations. People’s influences, good or bad, will always affect others goodness; it is up to the person whether or not to be affected by it.
It is true that peer pressure can lead to the wrong path for many people, but sometimes peer pressure can be good! Take Arcadia for example, this school, populated with individuals that are driven to succeed in life and achieve high grades, naturally influence their peers as well to do the same! This would be one case that peer influence can be a positive factor in writing out one's life.
I agree outsiders will always effect other people goodness, though I can't always agree that can choose to be effected. There are some things inevitable, like the depression really effected people's goodness as going to school and not going to school, can be considered a change in goodness.
I think you need a balance of different types of people in life. You are able to choose what is the best for you in life.
i definitely agree with you that peers can change a person for better or worse!
I agree that the actions that people commit can make them who they are in the long run.
Ya I see the influence of other people in the same way. However, I think you fail to see one point in regards to influence. Some influence is forced onto others and decisions they make aren't necessarily truly their own.
I agree with hilary in that you need to balance the people in your life.
I think that I am somewhere between good and bad but I do not know which way I am going towards. At times, I feel as if I am the worst possible person out there and at times I feel as if I have so much to be grateful for that I just want to help everyone. My thoughts and actions is what makes me good or bad. If I had always been pessimistic about how my life was then I believe I truly would be a bad person.
To me, what makes a good person is their intentions and compassion. If they have good intentions and try to give back to the world what they have taken. As we are now, there are only a handful of good people. They have to be able to care about others well being more than theirs and fulfill their destinies. A good person (to me) doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t do drugs or drink but who they really are inside. For example, if the world feel into chaos and everyone was fighting and killing each other for the same thing, for food, water etc. There would be one person who would share what they have and they wouldn’t kill people in order to get what they wanted. They would still put others well being before their own although that would make them a fool and they would die early. A good person doesn’t mean that they don’t have multiple piercing or dress nicely.
If I was to compare myself with my definition of a good person, I would say that I am far from being a good person. Because even though I don’t wish to hurt others, I still hurt them without knowing it and I can never lay down my life for people I do not know. When it comes to survival and death, I feel that people deserve to die and suffer and I do not feel any sympathy for them.
I do not believe that other people can influence my goodness because I am who I am. I do what I want and I feel what I feel. Even though hanging around people for a long period of time, and during that time we eventually pick up their habits, I believe that the choice is yours to make. If you are easily influenced by other people, then it means that you are weak and can not stand up for yourself. People who usually can’t stand up for themselves and are pushed around are the ones who tend to have issues with themselves. People aren’t items that can be changed whenever people want them to, so I believe that people can not be influences for better or for worse.
It's pretty interesting that you personified a good person as trying to give back into the world of what they take, then I'm sure I'm in more debt than I thought I was. haha.
Everyone's perspective is different. So it is really hard to determine if the person is good or bad.
We are totally in sync about our views on what makes a person good! Our intentions show a lot about us.
I also believe that I am in between good and bad. I think that at times we can be good and at other times we do bad things.
I love how you said that you are who you are. I'm glad to read your posts Shani! They show a different side of you in a good way of course.
Even though I wrote that I disagree with you for the post, I admire your last paragraph. I think it's great how you know that you're good...and you know that nothing will change that. YOU'RE SO COOL.
There is no such thing as inner good or inner evil. However, there is desire, and its opposite, self-denial. In life, our actions define us with the most detail because society can only see what we do and has no knowledge of what goes around in our heads. Naturally, this leads to the assumption that society’s perception of ourselves, of whether they think we are good or not, is far more important than our own labels. This is because our own characters, brought up in a society that has continuously been influencing us, are modeled after our societies. Without those societies, the idea of what is good and what is evil would have never taken root in our minds.
Taking away the influences of one’s environment and everything else that decorates away, we find that humans in their most savage and uncivilized nature, best represented by babies in their first years of birth before the influence of others fully converts them, are driven by desire. Everything in our world is a battle of inner desire, greed as many people may denounce it as, and the concept of good and evil, as believed by current society can easily be defined in these terms: What we do to deny ourselves and fulfill others is good and what we do that fulfills our own desires is evil.
Looking past that veil of illusion, we can clearly that the good and evil are abstract and superficial terms that really have no meaning. In people’s effort to become good, driven by societal pressure, they must resist their own desires and the factors that influence us to get rid of that mask are temptations.
Now back to Macbeth, his wife, Duncan, and all those other characters. It seems as if their society, much similar to ours, drives everyone to succeed. Lady Macbeth, who was deprived of opportunity and power during her years of life, is driven to obtain those things in order to succeed. The only method of having complete power and control would be to become King. But there is only one King. And so, in order to succeed and fulfill her desires, she must kill that King and take over herself, or at least through a puppet figure like her husband. If she does not kill the king, she loses her life’s goal but will be seen by society as a good person for giving up her own desires for other people. If she does kill him, she will have her desired power, but will become evil, or so to speak. Her husband is pretty much the same, driven by desire and at a crossroads in regards to his reputation in society. Likewise, both of them are neither good nor evil, but have their own desires to fulfill, just like every other human in their and our world, and decided to disregard the chains of society to achieve their goals, no matter the cost.
In regards to Duncan, being a good king is completely different from being good. Though the same exact adjective is used, their separate contexts drag their meanings miles apart from each other. To be a good king is to be an effective king; one who stays king for a long time can usually be described as good, because in order to last that long, the king must satisfy everyone by defeating his enemies, earning the support of his own people, and being an overall benefit to his nation. This of course, can not be attached to being good because to be an effective person would be to achieve all of one’s desires. As seen with the Macbeths, those who try to do so are labeled as evil. Therefore, we can easily declare that Duncan is not a good king because he definitely is not suited for his job. Take not that this is not an insult; for being a bad king merely means that his innate talents are more suited for other professions, though not being a good person is indeed an insult. As is the case, we can blame Duncan for being blind because he still is the king, even though is not suited for it, and doing a bad job only leads to his nation and people coming to harm.
I like your train of thought which seems most opposite than what I guess a normal comment be, especially as there are no good or evil because that is a horrible human thing as Satan the angel said something like that in Mysterious stranger. Though for babies being savage flesh driven by desire, as well pretty interesting that seem, I feel somewhat disagreeable about that- mostly because as much as I know as babies go, they desire to only live but rather I'm not sure if this is labeled desire rather more than instinct as I rather thought desire was a human thing. All living things seems to have this stubborn instinct to live, then live for something whether be meaning of life or have many offspring or live in a bird. so is it?
I really like the way you defined a good person and a good king. After reading your paragraph you got me to believe that Duncan isn't a good king.
I think that just that there is true good and true evil and every shade in between, but I like your blog post. It’s very well polished and the ideas are fresh and intricate. Keep up the good work.
Shawn, you always know how to answer all of Feraco's questions so perfectly. You answer it in a way that I wish I could myself. Good job!
I would say that the planner is infinitely more evil. Yes, the killer is the one actually acting out the plan but that person might not necessarily have an option. He or she could be a slave or simply just forced/ pressured like Macbeth. This in turn is compared to how the planner wants to kill someone and goes so far as to have ideas on how to do it. The thought of killing originates from the planner while the killer just does the task. I’m not saying that the killer isn’t evil. I just think in most situations that the planner is more evil because it’s so much harder to plan than to kill. The extra effort must come from a determined individual- an undeniably evil individual.
I think humans live based on their experience. I do believe that people are born in a certain way such as good or evil but I believe it can change. Just because you are “good” when you are young doesn’t mean you will forever stay like that. Its experience that guides us and it is experience that will guide who we are. With that said, people can very easily influence other people. For instance look at Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. I believe that Macbeth was a good person and that Lady Macbeth corrupted him when she pressured him to kill Duncan. He repeatedly showed how he didn’t want to but in the end he did do it which shows his transformation from a good person to bad. Yes, he regretted it immediately after he performed the deed but it is already too late. I believe once you do one thing bad it’s easier to do it again.
I agree with the extra effort for most cases too, because a great planner wth intent to evilly kill selfishly probably planned ahead to choose it they wanted their signature on it or not, more so if the planner is acting as a double-agent like Iago from Othello.
I agree with you that the planners are more evil because I think they always plan the evil or cruel way to kill people.
I like your post. I never thought of the idea that a person could be forced to kill someone else, such as a slave, like you mentioned. I think the whole planner vs killer situation depends on the circumstances.
I do agree that the planner has more sin, because they thought of the plan, but the killer has blood on his hands too
When it comes to Macbeth, I think Macbeth’s wife is more evil than Macbeth himself. Macbeth’s wife is the plotter behind this, and she is willing to do it herself if it comes down to it. When Macbeth comes home, his wife took matters into her own hands and finished the murder. As far as the reader is concerned, Macbeth’s wife is portrayed as evil so far. Macbeth and Duncan have qualities that aren’t good, but that doesn’t make them bad people. Duncan was blind to the warning signs, while Macbeth was easily pressured into doing such things. They may have bad qualities but that doesn’t make them bad.
I see no human being on this planet as sinless. I believe that it just isn’t possible to be sinless. If someone calls themselves sinless, I think they have just blinded themselves into thinking that. We are all human beings, we all have flaws, and we aren’t perfect. Therefore just because Duncan and Macbeth have bad qualities it doesn’t make them bad people. It just confirms who they are, human beings.
What is good and bad? We try to define them, try to seek them, and try to separate them. As far as I’ve looked, they are nothing more than words. If one day the rulers of the English language decided to switch the meaning of the words around, then what will they become? Helping the old, healing the sick and benefitting society will all be considered as bad things. While tripping the old and laughing, killing the sick and destroying society will be considered as good things. What will the words good and bad become? We trying to use words to represent meaning, but the meaning behind a word are very difficult to understand. So, what is the meaning? We may never know, we try to define good and bad, but when we blur the line or when we twist the words, we get confused. Ultimately we control the meaning, and how we define the meaning is how we try to understand the meaning.
I can’t conclusively say I’m a good person. I would be surprised if people can. The line between good and bad are blurred to the point where I simply don’t know. Have I done good things? Yes, hopefully. Have I done bad things? Yes, as least I think so. I can’t conclusively say I’m a bad person either. It is difficult to place yourself on a scale, where everyone sees’s the scale differently.
I believe about what you said about Macbeth and his wife, because I feel the same as well. She's the one behind all his actions, it's not really him doing it, he's basically her puppet.
I really liked when you started questioning the meaning of good and evil. It really got me thinking about the true meaning behind those words and in the end, I am still puzzled as to a legitimate meaning.
So true! Everyone on this planet is a sinner; it's impossible for someone to be perfect in every aspect.
I see Lady Macbeth as the ultimate villain because she's plain evil, there's not one good vein in her body. She's the mastermind behind all of Macbeth's actions, but we can't just blame Lady Macbeth and be oblivious to the fact that Macbeth is also a bad person. He allows his wife to have this control over him, if he was a strong person, he wouldn't have his wife control him.
If humans were able to tell who was bad and who was good, then there wouldn't be any betrayal. If I had the ability to see who was good and who was bad, I would alienate myself from the bad and get closer to the good, so I wouldn't get betrayed or backstabbed. We can't really blame Duncan, because Macbeth put up a front. He pretended and Duncan was just too blindly. He couldn't tell that Macbeth had other intentions, but quite frankly, telling from who's good and who's bad isn't an ability that everyone possesses. I believe that a conscience is what helps me make the choices I need to make. A good person can become a bad person, and vice versa. We see it in movies all the time, where the bad guy realizes that he messed up, so he turns his life around, and where the good guy gets a taste of being evil and ends up getting addicted to the taste of evil. It doesn't just happen in movies, it really does happen in real life.
I can't say that I'm an absolute good person, but I'm leaning towards being a good person. I do believe that a person will change as they gain more knowledge and as they experience more. I'm not sure about other people, but I am easily influenced by other people. I can be set on a decision and as soon as someone says something, I will change my mind. I'm working on this though, and I'm starting to just believe in my own decisions and not let other people tell me otherwise.
i agree and disagree with how you say that lady Macbeth is just pure evil. i believe that she is selfish and wants everything for herself but i think that its only because of the opportunity that arose.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by there would not be any betrayal if we were able to tell who is good and who is bad, but I like the other ideas you have.
Are we naturally good?
This is a question that all of us have different opinions on. I believe that the way we are taught is the way we grow up…mostly. A few days ago Mr. Feraco asked if I have seen a child that was raised in a good family but turned out to be bad..(or what we typically think is bad). And my answer was yes. My response to that was that the shild had two options, the good and the bad, and he/she chose the bad one because it looked better. Well I believe that it isn’t just how we are raised but how we as humans see what is right. For example, if I think picking up someone else’s trash is right others might not think so. It just depends on how the person perceives life.
In the case of Macbeth, we see that when the witches call him by the three different names and one says that he will one day be king, that stuck in his mind but it wasn’t something that he was focused on. When the opportunity arose that he could become king he thought about what the witches had said…
What would you risk to jump to a ten? How far would you go to get something that only one person can have? Would you want to if you knew that you couldn’t share it with anyone else?
I believe that Macbeth was a good person (to my standards) until he was influenced by another factor. And when this was presented to him he decided that that seemed better, just like the example above. There is something that makes me think that he wouldn’t have killed Duncan if he knew that he one day wouldn’t be king. Im positive because its like having someone saying that you could have 1 million dollars if you do this for me. If Macbeth kills Duncan he can be king.
How far will you go to get what you want? Are you willing to kill to get what you want? Are you willing to live with that guilt on your shoulders just to live the ‘good ‘ life? And when/if you get there…was it even worth it?
I agree with you when you said "it isn’t just how we are raised but how we as humans see what is right" because the environment around us can manipulate and transform us. This change is what can determine whether a person is good or evil.
I actually disagree with your thought that it's not so much about how we are raised by how we humans perceive this world. Yes you may be right that when I am picking up litter, some other person may believe that it is not right, but this comes because they were taught this way, not because they think of the world this way. As people grow up, they meet more people, experience different things and turn to different sides. Some people in a given population may be different even if they are raised simlarily is because they encounter outside experiences that others do not.
Sorry I highly respect your thoughts about the human perceptions of this world, but just putting my thoughts out there.
I agree with your perspective theory as perspectives just make the world so interesting and full of loopholes to contradict others just for fun of it. though I somewhat disagree we are taught are the way we grew up, because teachings are nothing without learning. For given example, I had this crazy piano teacher who taught me piano, well I learned nothing of that in my seven years taking piano classes, but I have no instrumental musical talent anyway. I ended up growing up with a good resolve not to become like my piano teacher, if I ended up old and alone like her I getting a dog or a goose sounds really fun. I grew up learning to think in rebel-like way against my parent to try twisting things to not go to piano classes because I didn't want to get taught by her and one time it was my birthday and it sucked. I don't learn most of anything from being taught actually as I grew up, if I did, then I probably would never have figure out never to touch fire. it's hot.
I think the planner is actually more evil than the killer because the planner is the one who creates and has the thoughts of killing people. But the killer just basically follows the instructions the planner gives him or her. Maybe the killer was forced or threatened by the planner. The killers are not evil. Sometimes they are just crazy and can not control themselves when they kill people. They actually regret that after killing people and seeing the blood on their hands. They are not that evil as the planners. The planners are different. They create the evil but perfect plan so that no one can find out who the "real" killer usually is. They seldom feel guilty because they do not see how bad and cruel it is when a person dies in front of them. So I think that the planner is actually more evil.
I do not want to lose my independence. Even though someone offered me comfort and gave me a lot of money in exchange, I would still say NO, definitely NO. I think people can live happily because they are not controlled by other people. It's like most students, especially teenagers, they want to be independent from their parents because their parents always control everything. I think it is useless for people live in the world without independence. I feel sad for those people who are always restricted by someone. It is sad for someone lose his or her freedom.
yea, independence means alot to every human beings because we think, we feel, and we have emotions that plants or rock simply don't possess.
Ability to think is the biggest factor that distinguish us from animals, without independence and the ability to make decisions, what's the difference between us and animals.
wow, you're really independent. but I wonder how far do you want to be independent because I can think of one situation where this question would definitely change view: Would you still want your independence even if was your death. If you were no longer able to live independently as elderly, would you still deny comfort or help?
I understand how you think the planner isn't as bad as the killer, but in my eyes i believe the are equally at fault. A person should't ever have thoughs about killing someone or doing harm to another.
War. Who are the true bad people? The politicians, who send the troops to kill? Or the troops, who pull the trigger. I agree with you on the planners being the more evil people. What choice do the soldier's have? They are protecting out country and forced to follow orders.
Sometimes, I think about people in communist countries and I wonder if they are happy. They don't know what its like to have a choice and the only hate they have for people, is for people outside of their world. How do we know we are happy, if we haven't been through not having the choices we have. What if the alternatives were not there. Would we still hate the things we hate?
People put up facades in order to hide their true personalities deep within themselves. Everyone has his or her own problems and people need to realize that there will always be suffering in the world. World peace would obviously be the most rewarding treasure that could ever be given; however, I believe it is incredibly unlikely that the world will ever obtain such tranquility. Who is to say that a child being born will inherently be born with evil intentions and one day murder someone. The term “evil” sprouts from the depths of darkness and just as the night conquers the daylight every day, evil will forever stay in the world. Do not get me wrong to when I say that people can be born evil; I am simply stating that there will be evil no matter what but there may be times in which that evil can turn to good.
Lady Macbeth has already been shown as a greedy woman and automatically we judge her. It is inevitable for a reader to judge a character right off the bat but it is true that the first impression is what gives a character a personality. We really do not fully understand her origin of such “evil” within her but we put her into the category of characters that are bad or would inflict harm to the innocent. So are we evil or bad for judging a person by their cover instead of truly understanding their origin of thought? People are always hypocritical and I have met my share of hypocrites in my time. I admit that I too have caught myself being hypocritical and once I realize it, I feel guilty. That guilt hurts in a way that I become frustrated for going against my own morals and in a sense I feel somewhat evil. I am definitely not a “good” person by heart because I have thought meanly of something but I would not consider myself under the category as “evil” either. In general, I love looking out for people and the connections I have created with people have shaped me to become a better person.
I agree that evil will stay forever in this world. I don't believe in a 'happily ever after' in this world; as long as there is hatred and greed, evil will remain constant.
I believe that people are born with evil and their parents teach them goodness after. Evilness is in our body ever since we were born, but when we do good things, our goodness overcome our evilness. Like your entry~~
I love the fact that you’re so down to earth and it’s so visible in your writing. You are able to talk about real life things just as they are. Its true people do put up fronts all the time and hide their true identities to fit in. The truth is our world is corrupted and it’s almost impossible to achieve world peace. Our world is twisted and sick in many ways but thankfully it has a beautiful and good side to it.
I tend to judge people if they are good or not by the motivations of their actions. There is a saying, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” but I find this to be quite a sad quote. Why would people be condemned for trying to do the right thing? I think if people have the right intent, and act on it, then they qualify as a “good person”. Our choices therefore, do determine our souls. Our souls have the ability to change according to our intents and actions. I believe that as we grow older, the health of our souls is shaped by our choices. Age does not determine how wise, or good we are, but rather how much time we have had to mature and create better souls. Because our souls and morals are not set in stone, it is perfectly reasonable for a good person to change to a bad and vice versa. For example in Macbeth, the protagonist begins the play a just and moral man. However, after he meets the witches, he warps into a twisted, conniving character. This demonstrates that a person’s morals are not set in stone, but are changeable as water.
If I applied my judgment upon myself, I would say that I am a mostly good person- a mediocre blend, with more than a touch of goodness. I’m judging this on my past actions and thoughts as compared to “good things” people have done for others. I hope that as I age, my beliefs will withstand the test of time and peer pressure and that my soul matures. I have yet to face the harsh realities of the real world and I fear that if my expectations differ too much from the reality of the world, that my morals may decline. Part of my “goodness” is influenced by my peers and family. Growing up in a Christian family, I certainly inherited values from my family that frowns upon being bad (not that I don’t do bad things haha). Deciding which friends to hang around also determine your goodness because you show others you approve of their actions by being their friend.
I feel that the quote you put is very true. We are responsible for our actions and they can either lead to something good or bad.
I agree with this “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”, but in a slightly differently sense because acting for good intentions are not the world's good intention and acting against those all the world idiots or some of them is probably like hell. I think it's means ' no good deeds goes unpunished' as like said in Wicked. being good has a much a tollprice as to be wicked.
Joshua, this post really got me thinking, it was definitely a great comment by you. The soul has the ability to succumb to change and age does not determine how wise your are or how good you are, but rather how muhc time you've had to mature and grow is very understandable. Keep it up.
Josh! I agree with you on the idea that our choices determine what are souls are and how age is not a factor in determining how smart or good we are. Nice work!
Regardless of motives or inner thoughts, I agree that actions create a "good" person. However, said motives and inner thoughts can create a more "volatile" personality, as influenced by Macbeth`s corruption because of his thirst for more power.
So I wanted to switch things up a little bit and answer a question that we discussed in class that intrigued me much more. Would you be willing to hurt someone else if it led to your success?
I actually had to sit and think about this one. I’m not going to lie I would be tempted to if I knew I could perfectly get away with it, and have everything I ever wanted and be completely happy. After all attaining true happiness all the time is quite challenging. But then I thought about it harder and the truth is I wouldn’t be able to live happily if I had to live with myself knowing that I caused harm to someone else. All the great things in my surrounding that I attained would have no value to them. I would have no value; I would go against everything I believed in, all my morals. I’m a nice person so causing harm to someone else would harm me. I always think what if I was in their position I wouldn’t want the same thing to happen to me. The people closest to me have hurt me many times before. There have been times where I could have totally gotten away with getting back at the person that caused me harm. But the truth is I am not a revenge seeker. All I want is peace and for the people in my surroundings to do good as well. So I realized that regardless of the fact that I could get anything in the world to make me happy I would pass on it. Because in reality what makes me happy at the end of the day is knowing I did the right thing.
But, here’s the question to ask yourself would another person do the same thing? Like if it was your friend and they were in the same predicament would they cause you harm to obtain whatever it is they want? I ask myself this question all the time: In reality most people are willing to hurt another person if they will receive something in return for their well-being. Most people deny it but when it comes down to it they are willing to do it, even if it goes against their morals and what they preach.
It's great that you're able to stick to your core values and actually think of others before yourself. There's so many individuals who only do things for their own benefit thus hurting all those around them.
I'm not even going to deny it. I will hurt someone if it leads to my success. And I guess first we need to define what success means. Does it mean happiness? Does it mean the fulfillment of some kind of goal? What exactly is it and if it is not happiness, is it proportional to happiness? I personally think it is, so the concern you brought up that hurting someone will eventually make us unhappy probably won't affect me. Yes, I've got to admit that this is cruel, but don't we live to succeed? We don't live just to live, just to maintain peace, right? Are you willing to let the chance slip away just because you feel softhearted?
And just want to point this out, when you apply for college, every spot you get results in one less spot for someone else and that someone else may very well be your friend : )
I would assume that I am a “good” person based on my core values; everyone’s definition of “goodness” is different so I wouldn’t say that I am not a bad person either. I am somewhere between “good” and “bad”. This goes for everyone else since anyone “good” is capable of being “bad”. (Vise versa) I could be a really good student, following all the rules, doing all that I must but then I also have a choice to create trouble, hurt everyone around me and insult them for the wrong reasons. Goodness doesn’t have to be based on our actions; our thoughts, our inner, is the core of our being that defines who we really are. Anyone could have twisted thoughts and still appear to be a “good” person to everyone else. In society, our actions define who we are as an individual, whether we obeyed the law or not. In the individual, our actions could have no meaning and just be a cover or a mask.
As we age, we become a better person; the lessons learned from our experiences prevent certain unfavorable repeats. I think that as we live on, we change unexpectedly; the events that goes on around causes us to repeatedly change the way we view the world. It all depends on how we perceive the world; people could take in the wrong ideas and decline instead of growing, becoming a better person.
The influence all around molds us to who we are today. How we respond to the pressure varies to the point in which it could either help or harm (for better or for worse). If someone were to help another fellow student out, that student could either see it as an opportunity to get a better grade or think in a pessimist perspective, thinking that everyone is looking down at him, assuming he is unintelligible.
I agree with you that we become better people as we get older & also that the wold around us has a great impact on the people we are and will become.
It's interesting how you said that we can be good or bad anytime kind of like a flip of the switch. I haven't really thought about it that way. But I understand the point that you're trying to make of the varying types/ definitions.
I find it really interesting that you do not rule out the fact that you may be a bad person based on someone else's definition of what a bad person is.
The one who considered smashing the spider and the one who actually smashed the spider.
One a thought, one an action; two different things yet essentially the same-they both originate from cruel intentions. But although they both come from bad intentions, I would say that the killer is more evil than the planner. The planner just thinks up the plan and sets out to commit the act but does not actually carry out with the plan. On the other hand, the killer, even under circumstances where they do not have a choice, has actually executed the plan whether or not the plan was theirs to begin with. In this case, the planner, for whatever reason, does not have the audacity-unlike the killer-to actually kill the spider; the planner contemplated it and eventually gave up while the killer gave in to their cruel intentions.
If someone offered me comfort/happiness in exchange for my independence, I would take it. When we devote ourselves to relationships, we unconsciously exchange our independence for their comfort and happiness whether it is through family, a friend, or a lover. We barely realize that we lose some independence because we get so caught up in each other that we don’t stop to notice minor details like this. And when we are finally fully aware that we have lost some independence by being in the company of one another, we don’t see it as a sacrifice but rather as a lightened burden; we both have each other to rely on.
It’s strange how human interactions work. When we seek out happiness, we also unintentionally seek out another being to share that happiness with. It’s as if the happiness would not mean as much if it were not shared with another. It could be a matter of self-consciousness, a matter of not wanting to be alone…the norm of society. And still, this question of why we feel the need to surround ourselves with others while our independence dissolves in the meantime lingers in my mind.
I like your first paragraph because basically the first comment I read the killer was eviler than the planner, and sorta the opposite of my arguement where for me thoughts were potentially more evil and powerful rather than yours where potential not as important as the dang guts to perform the deed, which I agreed with your arguement too. The thing that would blow both our arguements out of the water would probably be if no difference was between action or thinking in intent to hurt or evil.
I love your first sentence, Ellen! That is a really good example.
I really like your last sentence.
I agree that the purpose of our happiness is not mainly for ours to bathe in, but to share among with others so they may feel the joy as well. But in some cases like friendships or relationships, we lose our independence (like 500 days of summer) but it seems to be a worthwhile pursuit.
Independence is a strong thing to hold onto, but I'm willing to exchange even a large portion of it for something greater.
And I don't like spiders. It makes me feel evil when I make others kill them for me. I'm just too big of a wuss to do it myself.
Ellen, your entire post is just BREATHTAKING. Lol.
I basically enjoyed reading each part and sentence by sentence! But I have to disagree with you about taking in happiness for independence. :/
Ooops. I forgot to add:
I disagree because, why not just hold on to the independence you have and develop happiness and comfort through your independence? Why lose one and gain one?
I would think that the person who takes the time to develop a plan to kill someone would be more evil than the person that actually commits the action. However, this would vary from person to person. If the person who is doing the actual killing is just as motivated to do this as the person who is planning then they would be just as evil, but if the person killing is just acting as a puppet and his or her heart really isn't determined to kill, then they wouldn't be as evil as the planner. I think that some people will just do certain things out of impulse to please someone else. In this case, Macbeth wasn't actually using his own judgment when he killed the king, so I don't think you can really call this completely evil, perhaps just stupidity and blindness.
I think that are choices we make play a big part in the kind of person we are. The choices we make are really all we have to determine this, or at least to the people around us. If a person has the will to commit a crime even though they think of themselves as a good person then that doesn't make them good because they think they are, they could just be crazy, I know sometimes people do dumb things that they wish they could take back but really what makes us good or bad is our will power, the ability to stop ourselves from doing something we know is wrong. If we can stop ourselves from doing these things, we are good people.
I agree with your opinions! The choices we make deetermine who we are, but the choices we make don't exactly determine if we are evil or not.
When I judge people if they are good or bad I look at the actions they do. It also because of the surroundings and the influence they have around them while they are growing up. We cannot grow up by ourselves without any influence whether it would be good or bad. If parents do not raise the children well then the kids could wind up being bad kids and cause problems. Parents are only one thing that can influence the kids but I think it depends on the type of surrounding. Where their live can drastically affect the way the kids act. There is a difference between good people and bad people, for me good people make the right decisions and make the right choices that benefit not just themselves but others.
In Macbeth I think that Duncan could not have realized that Macbeth would kill him. He did not even want to kill him until he was stopped by the witches who told him that he would be king. When he heard that he told his wife and she thought that this was a prophecy that could happen. His wife was overjoyed with getting power for her husband. So he made a plan to kill Duncan. He has made a bad decision that can come back to him and bring him pain just like when he killed Duncan. This thirst for power consumed him to commit a murder that he cannot take back.
I, too, believe that people are influenced by both their parents and environment. I also feel that people’s experiences as they are growing up play a big part in determining their nature. Someone who has gone through various betrayals will obviously think differently from one who is loved by everyone.
If someone offered me comfort and happiness in exchange for my indepedence, would I take it? This question seems very tempting at first because after all we are on the pursuit of happiness, however to exchange my independence for happiness and comfort I just don't think that it's worth sacrficing. Independence is what makes me me, without it I would be doing what others tell me to do and I wouldn't be living my life because I would be living theirs. Besides with my independence I can achieve my own comfort and happiness through my own successes and failures and I can be happy with the choices I made, knowing that they were my decisions.
Who is more evil - the planner, or the killer? Answers may vary due to the situation, however I believe that in most cases the killer is more evil. The planner is evil for even thinking of having someone kill for him or her but the killer is actually the one carrying out the plans and murdering someone which is more evil than making the plan. In Macbeth's case, his wife was the planner and she devised the whole plan for Macbeth to follow through. In this case she is more evil because she forced the it upon him even when he didn't want to do it. When Macbeth killed the king, he was still traumatized at what he just did and regretted it, which shows that he was so dumb about the situation and was completely blind to the fact that he's killing someone.
I guess that you can kind of tell if someone is good by the way they act and the things they do, but I don't that you can really know how a person is unless your with them 24/7. No we can't blame Duncan for his blindness because we all thought that Macbeth was a good person, we would never expect him to do that.
I respect your decision to keep your independence and sacrifice happiness and comfort. I think that takes a lot of courage and good judgement. Way to go!
It is very true we are all in the search of happiness. In the end all we work for is to obtain happiness. You show you have a lot of character because its true if you didn’t have your independence you wouldn’t be you. You would be a puppet following the strings people pulled in your surroundings. In the end what satisfies us most is knowing that we are able to choose, succeed, and learn form our failures.
Why does the killer kill? Because of the plan. Now, lets take eliminate the planner. Will there be killing? The true evil lies in the planner, the killer is just the slave.
Why does the killer kill? Because of the plan. Now, lets take eliminate the planner. Will there be killing? The true evil lies in the planner, the killer is just the slave.
If I look back into my past, I would consider myself as a girl who leaned to the "bad" side; however, now that I think about it, I've grown and aged. I am a completely different person compared to the girl I was three years ago or even one year ago. I'm a better person; I'm a "good" person. I constantly looking for way to make me a better friend and person overall. It would be hypocritical of me to say that I have never thought "bad" thoughts, but I know what's right from wrong. I may want to do something that is deemed bad, but I would never actually put my thoughts into action. If I act upon the right thoughts, the "good" thoughts would overcome the "bad". Since I have already seen myself improve over the years, I think that experience, knowledge, and love will only increase the ability to become better. As you grow older, you gain more wisdom and with wisdom, comes wise decision.
Throughout the years, I have gained and lost friends. People change; their morality changes and so does their interests. Some people are capable of being above the influence over bad decisions and actions; however, some are not independently strong enough to overcome influence. Personally, if my friends are making good decisions, they influence me to be better. On the other hand, if my friends make bad decisions, I don't feel obligated to participate in their wrongdoings. After all, I do have full control over my life and my actions. It just depends on what type of person you are and what type of friends you have.
I am glad to hear that you are now a "good" person as oppose to the past. I am also glad to hear that you only follow what is best of your friends and do not follow the wrong doings, which sometimes may be hard to do. But for your last sentence, I believe that the type of person that you are, makes the friends for you.
I personally believe that the killer and the planner are just as evil. Yes, many may say that the planner is the one with the brain and he or she is the one who created this thought of evilness and that the killer is just playing the part; therefore, the killer does not really have evil intentions, he is just playing his role. WRONG! The planner, no doubt, is a very evil person. For someone to be able to plan evil doings against something or someone must have a very black heart. As for the killer, he is just, as many may say, playing a role. Then, why does this not make the killer just as evil? I would believe that the killer has his own brain, own heart, and own body: then can he not control his own choices? When given the idea or thought of the plan, the killer has a choice, the choice of fulfilling these plans and the choice of rejecting them. If the killer follows the route to finish out the plan, then he does have an evil heart as well, just as evil as that of the planner.
This then leads to fear, and it is this fear that changes a good person to an evil person. When the planner tells the killer to play his role and fulfill his plan, the killer can reject. When rejected, how would the planner force the killer to do his duties? The killer is then forced by fear. Just as in Macbeth, although he was not really forced to do the killing, Lady Macbeth stood around taunting Macbeth. Macbeth then had an inner fear, the fear of his environment; the three witches telling him his prophecy, his prophecy coming true, and now his wife taunting him to become king. With so many things flushed into his brain, he now grew greedy and just wanted to prophecy to come true. A good person can definitely become evil. As oppose to this thought, I believe that an evil person can become good as well! But, I have no support for this theory; I just believe it to be so.
But I think the planner is slightly more evil than the killer. I feel like if you have two separate people as planner and killer, they're both cowards. The planner doesn't do the kill and the killer listens to the planner. I do agree with you on how the killer is able to make their decisions. Goodness, I think I believe in this "ability to make your own choices" thing too strongly.
If someone offered me constant happiness and comfort, I would definitely take it. In searching for independence, I am ultimately searching for happiness. If my mom doesn't prevent me from going to the show that I want to see (my independence), then I'd be happier in that situation. I didn't particularly want the independence just to be independent. I want it so that no one can stop me from doing what I want to do. However, sometimes I make the wrong choices, and end up not quite as happy as I should be. If someone were to give me that happiness, I see no reason to not take it.
Good and bad are difficult to distinguish between sometimes. People are generally both good and bad, and sometimes it is very hard to decide whether a person is more good or more bad. I don't think it's necessary to define a person as good or bad. It's better to decide if the individual actions of a person are good or bad because sometimes, people make mistakes and do something wrong. Sometimes, generally good people falter, but one bad action doesn't make a good person bad. Sometimes, people might be inclined to do wrong, but they might do something nice once in a while. There might be a general scale of good and bad, but it is impossible to place a person in an exact spot. A person might fall in a range on that scale instead.
Other people can definitely influence whether I do good things or not. It is much easier to do the right thing when everyone else is too. Maybe it's the desire to fit in, or just the influence itself, more likely the first option. Society is one of the biggest influences on what is good and what is bad. In a way, society tells us what is acceptable and what is not. In America, it's unacceptable to eat dog meat, but in many Asian countries, that is normal food. I believe that society came to be by random chance. Some leader in the past probably set up the first society and had enough influence to mold and shape the morals of the people. So in a way, society's "rules" do stem from people, but they also shape people. I realize that society may not always be right, so I use my intuition to think about the moral code society has set up for us. I really have nothing other than intuition to base my morals off of, so that is the only not very strong justification that I have.
While I don’t agree with your first paragraph, I also feel that it is impossible to determine if a person is completely good or completely bad. After all, our emotions are a major contributor to the way we approach issues.
Amy, it is certainly a great thing for you to pursuit your happiness even in the absence or in your case in search of independence. It is understandable for someone to want independence so they can be within the confines of your own judgment and in pursuit of the things you want for yourself.
I actually hadn't thought about independence that way until I read your post. I don't recall stopping to think why I wanted independence, only that I wanted it. Now that I thirst to know why, I'm struggling to produce a sufficient answer. Thanks for the headache!
Amy, you really made me look at the opposite side of what I responded to for the "if someone were to offer me comfort in exchange for my independence, would I take it?" Now I am confused as to which side I agree with. haha
We share the same thought about trading independence for comfort and happiness ! nicely written
I think the planner is more evil, since the planner set up everything and he gave the killer "the chance" to sin, if there is no planner, no killer can sin. I don't mean that killer can get rid of it, but the one causes it is sometimes more important than the one who actually commit it. Honestly, I somehow stuck in this question, shift to another aspect: if someone convinced me to steal something, is it my fault or his fault once I committed the sin? Will the police blame me or him? Probably me, because I am the one who actually did it. In this situation, the killer is more evil since he did the crime, but not the planner. If he didn't do what the planner suggested, then the planner would become pointless.
I believe that other people can influence my goodness, I see myself as a really undecisive person, easily to bend. I think a lot of others' opinion and how they see me. Others can influence me in both ways; when I was about to do something bad, if my friends stop me or just tell me " do not do it", I will probably listen to her. If my friends do something bad and I don't correct her because I am afraid of losing her, then she just influence my goodness in a bad way.
In my view, our choices equal to our nature. We are identified our personality and the personality is determined by the choices we made. We have to make choices everyday, even every moment, to choose between study and play; between fight and compromise; between silence and argue. The decisions we made are came up from our beliefs, knowledge, and conscience and they represent when kind of people we are. For me, I think that everyone has the same nature, the latter conditions and experiences distinguish them. If a child was born in a warm family with love and in a good condition, the child would probably become nice and positive because he was raised under good influences. So our choices only represent what knid of nature we have currently and nature is changeable.
I kept thinking this whole blog, what if the planner made a world, as like inception where "the chance' to sin is there. which in your case made me think of the planner's thought not as a evil seed but a parasite able to attack if there was an opening. Manipulation is evil, but so is destroying what is others without complete thought. I think a reason were the killer is eviler than the planner is they felt completely the evil intent, because confused puppets aren't too much evil as the master.
I agree with you that our choices are equal to our nature. We are identified our personality and the personality is determined by the choices we made. That's really true.
I agree with Shan that it's mainly the planners fault, because without the planner, nothing bad would have happened.
i have the similar thoughts, but however you should question yourself whether you would act on your conscience.
I also agree with the fact that the planner is more evil then the killer.
Although Duncan was a good leader, he lacked the ability to recognize that his own country was in trouble. Because he lacked, in my opinion, the most important quality caused his citizens to rebel against him. Also, it was inevitable that his reign would fall due to his lack of leadership for his people. I believe Duncan deserved to die. However, Duncan was essentially murdered by the person he trusted most at the time. Macbeth’s actions were not justified because he had no right to kill Duncan, even though he was a bad leader. Lady Macbeth was also wrong in this scene. She shouldn't have allowed her hunger for power influence her husband to do such a dreadful act, an act that might cost his entire career as a hero.
If someone offered me comfort and happiness but in exchange, my independence, I would not take it because I would feel trapped. Although a life of comfort and happiness would be an ideal life, without independence, one would not feel that life is complete. Without independence, one would not learn how to live because everything would be done for them. Hypothetically speaking, if I were denied independence I would definitely thirst for influence if I were given the opportunity. Because I have been denied the opportunity to speak, I would want to be able to have an influence on others. It would make me feel independent and free from the life that denied me of my independence. For example, Lady Macbeth has been living under Macbeth, her powerful heroic husband, so when she was given the chance to choose her husband's path for the future, she took up the opportunity to do so.
Can you conclusively say that you are a “good” person? Are you somewhere between “good” and “bad,” leaning in a certain direction? What sort of criteria are you basing your response on – your actions, your thoughts, or both? Do you believe you will become a better person as you age, as you gain experience and knowledge, as you live, love, and learn – or will you decline?
Finally, do you believe that other people can influence your “goodness,” for better or for worse? If so, how
A good person is someone who does things with the intent to help others. Someone who would risk their well being to see someone else prosper. I believe that I am a good person. I constantly try to make others happy by maybe cracking a few jokes here and there, giving out advice to those who need it most, and putting others before me in tough situations. Growing up, my parents told me to always be a good person. Your kindness should severely overwhelm your hatred. Nothing should be able to turn your kind heart evil.
Others can always have an impact on your good, and evil side. Negative and evil energy will sometimes expose you to do bad things, which can ultimately change your personality. People living in a society or environment surrounded by happiness and kindness will sure enough have a good personality. They become accustomed to the way people live, and naturally adapt to it. That's why someone who lives in a hateful environment could easily be in jeopardy of becoming a bad seed. So to express my opinion, the good and the bad can change at any time depending on how the surroundings effect the person.
I like how you realized that we do things with habit and when others we hang around with do something they rub off on us. I also like the bad seed part great wording.
I do agree the outside can effect the inside goodness and badness of a person and it won't always be a mimicking effect. but I think there should be thing able to turn a good heart evil because I believe in free choice, and if you wished you to be evil, I think that wish should be strong enough to turn you evil. I don't think good is the only choice there, evil is one too. look at those villain dare out proclaiming they're evil.
I really liked your blog, i definitely agree with your opinion on the environment/others influencing a persons potential to be good or bad. It unfortunately happens all the time, just like in Macbeth. Good Job!
I agree with everything you said, especially the fact that people are easily influenced and choose to do the wrong things.
I think people can influence other’s goodness. We change ourselves sometimes to satisfy others we don’t want to risk losing. Depending on the person the change could be good or bad. But some people would rather be living a life dictated by someone else because it’s better than being along such as with Macbeth. Compared to Macbeth I consider myself a pretty good person. I admit that I’ve done things in my past that aren’t so nice but I do believe that deep down in everybody there is a good person. That as humans we learn to grow with every mistake we make. And as I age I will become wiser because along the way I’ll be gaining a new perspective on life. I know there will be obstacles leading me down a different road. I won’t let that get in the way of who I am and morals. Also, our actions may be wrong yet it doesn’t mean that’s who we are. If you take a person barely surviving on minimum wage to support their children and needs to steal to make payments, it shows that what they’re doing isn’t right but they do it for the sake of their family. I don’t think that defining a person by their actions is the best way to determine whether they’re good or evil. I mean Macbeth had to be a good person sometime before he killed Duncan, right?
Wow, I completely agree with you. It's like you read my mind.
I kind of agree that people can others goodness but i also kind of feel the opposite of that. Good job though i really liked it.
While it would be very tempting to accept the offer, I can’t live a life without my independence. Sure, I may be heavily dependent on my peers, but the little independence that I do possess, I treasure as much as I do my dependence. Simply being given “happiness” in return for independence is like becoming a slave and living a rather comfortable life. I can’t live like that. I believe that life is about progress, that people are constantly looking for ways to improve. This can’t happen unless they experience every aspect of life, both the positives and the negatives. To do that, however, a person must be able to make his or her own decisions, learn from every mistake, and move on. Without my independence, I will only know half of happiness, for one can’t truly be happy until he or she has experienced sadness.
To me, the actual killer is more evil. People are very capable of terrible thoughts, especially when infuriated. I, for example, think of ways to take revenge when I’m angry. However, I don’t believe that I am classified as an “evil person” simply for doing so. When a person is angry, he or she tends to think or say harsh things unintentionally; it’s an innate reaction. A person who actually goes through with a murder, however, is more evil. By committing one crime, he or she reveals his or her capability to actually commit another offense. Yes, Macbeth kills Duncan after being bullied into it. However, all the murders he commits after are of his own free will. He schemes and follows through with his plans without Lady Macbeth’s knowledge. A person who is capable of killing one is capable of killing many.
ASDLKBJLAJWER OH MY GOODNESS DUDE, FOR YOUR SECOND PARAGRAPH WE WROTE ABOUT THE SAME THING BASICALLY! Danggg, I totally agree with you! I think about getting revenge on people a lot of times too! Haha...I guess that's not something I should be happy for agreeing with you...I mean, yeah, that's bad...but I'm happy I have someone who agrees with me!
Oh, whoops, sorry Mr. Feraco..that was...totally not an appropriate way to express my opinions for an English class...
interesting second paragraph, the killers-are-more-evil comments are so much more fun to read than the opposites like me who wrote the planners are evil. I like to think of ways to kill too, but revenge too much of a bugger and not as flashy. I killed a character once by him running into cement and not breathing because he tried to save his imaginary dog.
oh I mean ways to kill off only characters in my stories, not in real-life. I'm evil in a different lazier way. I hope I never do any sort of non-bug / accidental plant killing in my life.
I believe that the planner is just as evil as the killer. You can’t say one is more evil than the other because they both do something to contribute to someone’s death. The planner is the mastermind behind someone’s death. They are the one executing every action that leads to someone’s death. He or she doesn’t necessarily perform the killing, but usually have an accomplice to do it for them. The killer is just as evil as the planner because they actually perform the evil deed. They are the one who takes the person’s life away. An example would be Macbeth and his wife. Macbeth’s wife wanted Macbeth to become king so she planned out Duncan’s death. Macbeth’s job was to deliver the killing blow on Duncan. Thanks to his wife, Duncan was successfully killed and the guards were framed. Macbeth seems like the more evil person because he killed Duncan, but without his wife he wouldn’t have done it successfully.
I believe that people can influence the “good” in us for the better and for the worse. A good person can become evil and an evil person can become a better person. Many people in our lives influence who we are. A number of us have a hero or a role model that we look up to. Something as simple as “You should do drugs” from our role models can easily change the type of person we are. Because they are our heroes and we look up to them, we will listen to what they say. Something like that can make a good person turn evil in a quick second. However the same thing can be said the other way around. In a relationship, a man and a woman can have a huge influence on each other. For example, if the man was hanging with friends and they were doing bad things, he would be easily influenced by them. However, the woman wouldn’t be too happy with the man’s actions. Due to their strong love and trust for each other the woman can easily tell the man to stop his actions. He wouldn’t want anything to ruin their relationship so he would stop his evil deeds and become a good person for her.
I, too, believe that both the person who plans and the person who does are equally responsible for their actions as accomplices. It equates to a teacher telling his or her students to ditch their other classes and break the rules; they would both be at fault - one for issuing the command and the other for executing it.
We are all born without bad or evil in us. But our “goodness” can be affected for better or for worse by the people we are around with the most, especially our friends. Even though parents tell us what’s right and wrong, during our teenage “rebellious” phase, us teenagers will most likely listen to our friends than our parents. I’m sure most of us probably had already experienced that more than once. This is the reason why it is extremely important for us to hang around people who we can learn from. That doesn’t necessarily mean they have to be smart, it just means they should have goodness in them. I used to hang out with a group of selfish people who judged people easily by their appearance, how they act, and what they had heard about them. After a period of time, I finally realized that they changed me for the worse, opposite from what I desire. The people who I hang out with the most now influenced and motivated me to work harder and be selfless. I can proudly say that I am a better person than I was two years ago.
I would take it if someone offered me comfort and happiness in exchange for my independence. I would rather live a life of comfort than live a life of struggle being independent. Sure, independence is important, but sometimes having someone telling me what to do and what not to do can stop me from going towards the wrong direction and making wrong decisions. I don’t believe that independence will lead one to happiness and comfort unless individuals like to live alone for the rest of their lives. I want to live my life with comfort and happiness because afterall, that is one of the things I’ll be searching for through life. So why wouldn’t I take it if it is given to me knowing that it is guarantee for me to feel comfort and happiness?
It's entirely true that the people who surround us have a gradual effect on us. And most definitely, it's up to you to be the one who decides whether the people you choose to be around are good influences or not. I know what you mean when you say you used to hang out with a group of judgemental, selfish people. I truly don't understand why teenage girls (and boys?) have to degrade each other and pick at each others' flaws as a way to make themselves seem like the better person. Imagine how great we'd feel if we only looked at the positive things! [p.s. mow]
You have an optimistic view on how we start off and how we are when we were born. Maybe we are born with all goodness, but you can't always be sure. I think it's possible people are born bad, but they can be changed.
I think I fall in the shaded gray region between good and bad. I know I am a good person because I don’t do anything to hurt others and I actually try to help them. For example, I usually think about others before myself. Last month, my friend got stranded in Pasadena, and I drove there to pick him up even though I was grounded. This represent the extent I would go to help someone. However, it also shows that I am not completely good because I went against my father’s orders. Thus, I am unsure if I am good or bad, I just do what I feel is right.
I don’t know how I will be like tomorrow, how can I forecast the future? My mood, my goals, my personality change everyday as a result of my experiences. There is no way to determine what I will have to go through in the future. Good people can become bad, and bad people can become good. Nothing is set in stone about your character and morals. Different people have different opinions on a person. Some might think that I am good because I helped my friend in need but others will criticize me for disobeying my father. We are a product of our society, family, and experiences.
I really like how you broke your father’s order and went to Pasadena to help your friend. I also like how you do what you feel is right.
Our choices determine our nature. We can't be born with our personalities, therefore I don't believe that anyone is born evil or good. We are all born the same, we don't know anything, we can't make our own decisions. When we are born, the only that makes us different from others is our physicality, some bigger than others, some are different ethnicity or gender. Otherwise all babies are exactly the same. The point is, as we grow up, the more we change. This is because we are all raised differently, influenced differently, and we alll have different lives. So choices definately determine our nature, because choices are based on our nature.
There are always obstacles in life. We are supposed to be capable of doing anything we want to do, but it's up to us to stand up to obstacles, or influences. We can't let influences determine our lives so greatly, or else we must sacrifice the one thing that makes us who we are, our identity. I think my parents raised me well enough for me to determine the difference between good and evil. Also, I don't have people around me that are doing "evil" things. So for me personally, it would be more difficult for someone to influence my "goodness" because of the way I was raised and influenced.
I agree with you that we are all raised differently, influenced differently, and we alll have different lives. So thats why some are evil and some are good. So true.
I believe that by losing independence, it is the same as losing yourself, so if someone offered me happiness and comfort for exchange of my independence, I would have to say no. Mainly because I don’t think happiness is something that simple. It’s not something we can just exchange or offer that easily. Happiness is something we have to earn. So by just exchanging independence for happiness, you’re not truly happy. You’re only happy because of someone else, not because you deserve it. I rather be unhappy or less fortunate because of my own doings.
I think that the killer is worse than the planner. For the stand and deliver, I confessed to the class that I planned to avenge the person who disrespected me. (Of course, it wasn’t killing…) But I never carried it through. And to be honest, when I’m angry, in Mr. Feraco’s words, I “stabby stabby” a lot of people in my head. Is that evil? Haha, yes. But at least I don’t actually do it, right? It’s just a thought, and eventually, I get over it. But for the killer…that’s a different story. They don’t just think about it....they actually do it!
I believe that all people are born “good”, and that it’s the people around you are the ones that influence people to change. Everyone is born equal and the same. But the environment around us is what changes us. The things we experience gradually take a toll on our perspective of the world, both better and for worse. I think that people are born…sort of like play-doh. We start off like a soft blob, and as we experience many different things, it alters our perspective and slowly models us into who we are.
I think I rather be silly putty, it bounces and play-doh hardens about after a day depending on its size, I don't think silly putty does that.
I agree that we earn our independence and happiness. Happiness that's given by others could not really make us happy. Nice work~~
Sorry Michelle, I accidently posted my comment under my own blog post
Go read #51.1.1 If you want to see.
First off, I believe that our actions determine whether our soul is good or bad. So I don’t feel that we are born evil, but a big factor that determines the way one grows up is how they are raised. A family has a big impact on someone when they are growing up and if a family has negative beliefs about people then most likely you will have the same thoughts. Of course when someone grows up and experiences life, they will acquire their own beliefs and may change beliefs. The nature of someone can always change, you can go bad or change from bad to good, it all depends on the person.
At this point in my life I don’t see myself as being a horrible person. I don’t really put people down and tell others they suck. I try to be nice to people even if I am having a bad day. Not one individual is perfect and I do occasionally say bad things but it’s not like a meant it at the time, after I blew off steam then I realized I did something wrong and I tried to go fix the problem. If I look into the future I hope with more experience and knowledge I will perfect myself as a person and improve upon how I live, love and learn. When I leave to college and go live life on my own, I know I will fail, those encounters will teach me to become stronger. Since we are creatures of habit, once we do go out and do our own things we will establish new ways to handle with people. In life I have learned it’s a dog eat dog world and the only way to cope is to play other peoples games, the only way to do so is to be good/bad person when necessary. My grandfather once told me to keep my friends close but my enemies even closer.
Treating others good when you are down is something not everyone is able to do. If people were like you and kind to others even you are down would make the world a better place. Doing it could slowly reduce and prevent the spreading of hate to make the whole world get along better. A little thing like this could make a big impact later on in the future.
My dad said the same thing, "keeping your friends close but my enemies even closer". the spread of knowledge is amazing!
A good person is typically seen as someone who cares for other people. They think of unity and community first and foremost, and only then put themselves into the picture. When someone steps out of the normal boundaries of what is expected of them, and truly helps someone, we can think they're good people. But, we can't necessarily know they're good. There is always the chance of ulterior motives, and other contributing factors. That is why I can't believe that anyone is TRULY good. Most actions I take are considered good, but I can honestly say I don't always think the best of people. So, I believe that when we make good actions, that doesn't guarantee we are good people. Duncan can't be blamed for that reason. He didn't know what the other people were thinking, such as the old Thane of Cawdor, and if he had expected that everybody was untrustworthy, he would have just been a Stalin.
Goodness therefore is something that can't be determined very easily, and can't last for very long. Since it's impermanence is determined by things such as an individual's age and world view, it can also be changed by other individuals as well. Some people, such as Duncan and Macbeth, are too trustworthy. They are seemingly good, but can be lead to be evil people. Their nature is changed by someone who seemingly has good actions, but corrupt motives. When someone is able to misuse your trust of them, for better or worse, they become the puppet master. They make you doubt your own set of morals that you yourself set out for yourself, and follow their own morals.
Haha, it's true that you never know who is truly good or not. Because they do hide their motive and decieve people. But then people still take chances even if they know that they will be betrayed. It's because we can't live without trust. I like your post!!
I believe that we can’t find out if someone is “good” because we don’t really have an exact definition of “good.” For me, I believe that good revolves around the morals of a person. And we shouldn’t judge someone instantly once we see them, but get to know them a lot better before we put “titles” on them. I’m not saying that first impressions count because that’s what makes you decide if you want to continue talking to the person. For example, when I meet someone of interest I usually spend time talking to them on the phone and it takes a while before you get a good reading of their personality and character. Then if I want something more I go for it. It can take a while however, before you actually have a good reading on someone but it’s always important to have the RIGHT reading. So people may ask, “how can you find out if that person if for sure ‘good’”? Time will help you find out but I believe that it’s up the person to decide if someone’s good even though they’re not sure yet. That explains why people think their loved ones are good for them and they get married, but later on they decide to have a divorce. For someone to think of another as their definition of good is all by choice.
I truly think that Lady Macbeth is the evil mastermind behind the play and Macbeth is her puppet. I haven’t read much of the play yet but from what I know so far, Lady Macbeth is behind the “curtain” on all these happenings and she’s controlling her husband with strings on the stage. Macbeth is what I call a “good” man but he is dumb for falling for his wife’s traps. He has good intentions for the kingdom and loves his king a lot, but his questioning for power overthrows his mind. I’ve wondered what I would do if I was in his position and I thought at first of never killing Duncan, but things changed. Would I rather be a good person to people and live with my life, or kill a friend in order to be famous and be known by all people in Scotland? This reminded me of the movie Tropic Thunder because Matthew McConaughey’s character had to make a decision to either be rich and leave his best friend(Ben Stiller), or go find him and possibly die. I’ve figured out that if I was Macbeth I would probably kill Duncan because my wife would be clouding my mind so much from her influence. Also, I personally tend to fall for girls easily so that wouldn’t help at all either.
I believe I am a “good” person, most of the time. At times I do things that are so stupid. Some things I regret because it still haunts my conscience. But I try to stick to my morals and not distort them so I can live a balanced life. Even though I’m a pretty independent person at times, some people influence my actions. I’ve always thought my friends never influenced me to do stupid things, but I realized that I act differently with them. With girls I have a nice touch of kindness, but when it comes down to hanging with my guy friends, I act crazy at times just to get attention. I need to balance my emotions and life. At other times my friends can influence me to do better at school or just in general to become a better person. I remember in middle school and early high school I had so many idols that I looked up to and if it wasn’t for their wise words that they told me, I would probably be in a lot more trouble with school and the law. Influences can change your “good” level positively or negatively, depending on how you interpret the influence. But no matter what influences you, it is always your fault for deciding on something.
I think I would take comfort and happiness in exchange for independence because happiness is what we all want right? Independence is something that is key to living, because we all need our along time, but I believe that if we were given full and true happiness, we wouldn’t even know that we lost independence. Happiness is all that we want, and it can vary from money to having children, but it is our goal meaning in life.
I agree with your thought on how Lady Macbeth is the evil mastermind and how Macbeth is just her puppet. Lady Macbeth is extremely power hungry.
Feraco said in class that literature usually in that time portrayed woman as pure individuals. This sort of gives us a realistic perspective on who as we people really are.
I agree with how judgement was clouded. Lady Macbeth clouded Macbeth's judgement, and if I was in his position, I would try to keep my reason but i too mostly liked carry out the action.
I believe that our choices determine our nature and we become who we are from our personalities and influences. I believe that there was apart of him that was telling him not to kill the king. If it wasn't for his wife, I honestly don't think he would have killed the king. I do think his wife is more evil then he is, and I agree with Mr. Feraco when he said that Lady Macbeth was not like any other female character we've seen. Sometimes you can tell who's bad or good just from the way he acts, but a you have to know his personality to know for sure. I believe it's possible for someone to become good from evil or evil from good. People can really be influenced pretty easily, just like Macbeth was by his wife.
I don't believe that I'm a "good" person because I've done a lot of things in the past that I'm not proud of. I'm sure that I'm not the only one. None of us are perfect and sometimes its in our nature to be evil, just because of that instinct of survival we were born with that makes us somewhat selfish. I'm not completely sure if I will become better or worse in the future, I get convinced by my friends pretty easily. I do believe that I will be better in the future because my parents have the biggest influence on me, and as we all grow up, we learn more of whats right and whats wrong.
I half agreed its human nature to be evil, but instincts are not evil. Humans as what they know are the only strange creatures to judge right or wrong, and good and evil.
I agree that our choices determine out nature and we become who we are based on our personalities and influences.
I agree with you! I also believe that Macbeth had something telling him he shouldn't kill the king especially when he was thinking of how much he's done for him. But if it wasn't for Lady Macbeth, the king would still be alive. She influenced Macbeth into doing something evil.
I think we are all killers.
We would like to think that we are 100% conscious and aware of our actions and morals all of the time, but there are always certain circumstances that disallows us to be completely truthful to what we believe in. Putting on a label for whether or not a killer or a planner is 'good' or 'bad' seems quite hypocritical and obscene, as we cannot simply paste on an adjective and judge that this individual is only good or only bad.
This scares me. I tend to watch a lot of criminal TV shows such as Law and Order that really question other's (as well as myself) demeanors. It is a TV show after all, but the situations can be so realistic it's quite scary: a husband killing a wife or parents killing their children. These cases happen. People can do crazy things, maybe they're a sociopath (is that an excuse?) but I have some belief that they're just being controlled by their human instincts.
I don't know if it's an excuse to the wrongs that we have done or the crimes that we or may have not committed. There is law and order in our lives, it's set up so we feel obligated to have some control by somewhat leashing our natural human desires.
Lady Macbeth's actions seem quite gruesome as it isn't necessarily acceptable behavior to our assumption. We are taught to carry traits that are admirable: kind, humble, caring, etc. And when we display even the tiniest ounce of what's not expected, we are considered 'evil.' The human standards that we put up for ourselves and others are absurd as we ourselves know that we are not perfect but believe that we are capable of being so. Lady Macbeth obviously did not make the greatest of decisions, and let her selfishness get the better of her, but that does not reflect on her true character.
I've acknowledged the fact that revenge is a useless pursuit (at least when I'm conscious). But I cannot say that I will always stick to my belief as I never know what I could run into. If I were to kill somebody out of revenge or selfishness, does that make me a bad person? I like to believe that my soul and my flesh is separate, I acknowledge that there is a constant battle between good or bad (my true identity which is the soul and my humanly desires which is the flesh). Not trying to justify any future actions (or that I will kill somebody) but I cannot trust my flesh. I don't know its capabilities. That's what scares me the most.
Jackie, still goooood.
Your statement about putting labels on criminals is, in truth, very hypocritical. I mean, look at our SELVES--we display all the good and bad's EVERYWHERE. Good job!
I very much liked what you had to say, your blog was quite an interesting read. I also believe that humans are naturally destructive beings, but agree with you in that it in impossible to pinpoint people as completely "good" or "bad." I think that is all subjective.
Even if a crime/murder/rape/etc. is shown on TV as a fake story, people still have to come up with these things and think the murder/rape/etc. crime through in order to televise it! I think the people that come up with those types of scenarios either base it off things that have actually happened OR they get in touch with their evil side... I'd say that it's "quite scary" too!
I really liked the perspective you came from - made me look at it from a different seat! Lengthy, but in a good way, keep me interested throughout!
A planner, manipulative and cunning, is definitely more evil than killers. Are soldiers, who kill based on commands, evil? Or is the planner behind the war, sending and commanding soldiers to kill others, the true evil? Manipulation of others, to me, is even worse than betrayal; so my dislike of manipulative people may be a cause of bias and blind me from the evils possessed by killers.
A person feeds a starving stray dog; one would say that he is good and kind by nature. On the contrary, another steals the purse of an elderly lady for money; one would categorize his nature as bad. Choices are definitely the determinants of our “nature”. However, what would be the determinate of our choices? That would be our conscience. The first person could have fed that stray dog because his conscience would not let him swallow the guilt of seeing the dog starving and completely ignoring it. The second person could have left the lady alone, but his conscience didn’t consider stealing to be that costly, compared to other methods which he could have done to get money. Therefore, our choices determine our nature, but our conscience determines our choices. That said, it is definitely possible for a good person to become evil and the opposite is true as well. A “good” person can become “evil” if their conscience shifts in a way that the choices they decide to make have negative results. The same holds true for the opposite.
Good people are those who are morally strong; who are compassionate and considerate of others and willingly listen to their own conscience. Based on that, I find that I’m somewhere in between, constantly shifting between the two. Mainly because as much as I try to be compassionate and considerate of others, I often find myself making selfish decisions, which might cause trouble for others.
As people mature and gain more experience and knowledge, the person they become is affected by the experience and knowledge they gain. Should a person who experiences a lot of negative and depressing moments throughout their lives; they may become bitter and decline due to the moments. On the contrary, those same bitter experiences may cause them to become an even better person. In my case, I think that with the experience and knowledge I gain throughout my lifetime, I would become a better person, although I’m fairly certain that I’ve only tasted experiences and knowledge and how I would change due them is unpredictable.
I agree with your definition of a good person but that can only go so far as that 'good' person can even break sometimes though he/she assumes to be morally strong.
I find myself shifting between the two all the time, which questions whether or not I even have the potential of becoming a good person.
In all honesty, I've realized that we can't just define a good person or a bad person because there are always exceptions or circumstances that we in our human capabilities have no control over. We like to be control freaks, as well powerful because we want to change even what we cannot.
Wow. I love how you mentioned war and raised the question of the soldiers being the evil ones or the person who sent them there in the first place; that second sentence was what really piqued my interest to read your blog. Your whole blog, generally, was awesome, your a great writer.
*YOU'RE a great writer. I am just full of grammar errors today.
"If someone offered you comfort – happiness – in exchange for your independence…would you take it?"
Trapped. Confined. Boxed out. Is happiness really worth the price of freedom? Is being happy while you are enslaved have a meaning? It's a matter of contradiction. This is ransom. You trade in something of importance for selfish reasons. Isn't having independence or being independent provide happiness itself? Freedom is free will. We no longer have chains holding us back, limiting our decisions and personal wants. For example, the love we receive from our parents can be over-the-top at times. They can be overprotective, stopping us from our desired actions and replacing them with their own personal suggestions. It's harsh and unacceptable for some, but it's what they believe is "best" for us.
The idea of being provided with comfort and happiness by "trading in" independence portrays human beings as weak, fragile minds. If we were to accept this trade, we are repudiated by others and our actions will reflect on our words. In my belief, I would not take happiness for independence. Why? Why not just build-up, strengthen my independence and morals to a point where I can provide myself with happiness without giving up my freedom? In addition to during the period where I'm "strengthening," experience comes in handy for the future as well. Think about it, trading in the great significance of independence for impermanent satisfaction and comfort seems a way of cheating life--taking lousy shortcuts to display fake achievements.
Our choices determine our outcomes and impressions, but they do not determine who we are and our nature. In middle school, I always acted very immaturely and irresponsibly therefore I put in everyone's eyes a goofball. But deep down inside me I'm not really that. It was my choice to act the way I did because I wanted to, however in result I didn't receive the respect that I planned for. How we can determine our nature is merely convey our true personality deep down within each of us. And it is up to us to show people who we really are or simply frauds. But how do each of us distinguish between what's right and wrong. Because if we don't know the difference then how would we know who we are by nature? Well I strongly believe that the answer to that is that we already know what's right and wrong within us because of our soul. I believe our soul is what makes each of us unique and develop who we are such as our personality, etc. Also, everyone is an actor, we can all put on a show, not necessarily a good one, but yes we do know how to lie very easily. Lying is a natural habit. We all learned it ourselves, and if we do not we still apply daily. Unless you are a good person like me then you don't use it as much. ;}
I don't believe a person's nature can change because it's who they are by nature. Simple as that. Even if they want to change they would be stressing themselves out and be wasting their time. I say this because as much as I want to be jerks to some particular people out there, but I just can't because I'm too nice. :/. As much as I hate this curse, I can't change it. Being a nice person is just who I am, unless they tempt me then it's a different story. But my self control is substantially high.
Unfortunately no I am not a good person yet because I still talk back to my mom. :/ But I am trying really hard. I try my best to show my positive and enthusiastic side when I'm out in public and when I am at home I just screamed at the top of my lung to get all the stress out that engendered from the public. haha. I know I will become a better person as I age, well hopefully.
I like your reason about changing our nature. we can't change it because it IS our nature to be such and such. well put!
Golden, I would have to disagree with you about how one's nature is developed. You say that when one is born, there nature is set for them and they can not change it. But, I believe that their nature is created during their childhood phase. It depends on their parents or guardians to shape their nature up, so they can either come out as good or bad people. Parental problems, poverty/rich, and education all play their parts into shaping people's nature. Other than that, your post is really well written!
Well I have to disagree with that because even if a kid is raised by good parents and lived in a good society that doesn't make the person good. I mean look at Siddhartha, he was raised well but when he gets older he leaves his dad and breaks his heart because he knew he couldn't accomplish what he wanted there so he left. This was going to happen since the beginning because it is by nature he was going to achieve enlightment and he had a way of wanting to do things himself.
Once upon a time, two friends were traveling in a desert. Along the way they got into a conflict and one of them slapped the other one on the face.
The one who got slapped felt humiliated, he walked out of his tent and silently wrote down on the sand “Today my best friend slapped me on the face.”
Later, they found an oasis so they stopped to drink and take a shower. By the river, the one that got slapped was almost drowned. Luckily, his best friend saved him.
After he was saved, the one who got slapped took out his dagger and carved on the nearest stone “Today, my best friend saved my life.”
His friend asked him, “How come you wrote on the sand when I slapped you, but carve on the stone after I saved you?”
His answered with a smile on his face, “when one got hurt by his friend, he should write his displeasure on places that’s easy to forget, the wind will erase it; On the contrary, if one got help, he should carve it deep in his heart, where NOTHING could destroy it.”
A lot of the times our friends do unpleasant things to us, it is our choice to remember it or not. It depends on ourselves whether people around us influence our “goodness” for the better or for the worse. If we tend to remember the bad things our friends do, our goodness get influence for worse. If my friend use drug every day, I will not use drug because I am not going to be influenced by his bad side. Instead, I will remember his good side. A person who remembers others for their good sides often got his “goodness” influenced for the better. Real friendship is very rear; the one who have real friendship owns fortune.
I like you story, it is very influential and nice. I really like the part when you mentioned how one got hurt by his friend, he should write his displeasure on a place easy to forget, and the part which when one got helped should carve in deep in his heart. Good Job!
Wow... what a cool story, especially if you thought of it. I agree that we should remember the good things, and forget the bad.
Who is more evil – the planner, or the killer?
Well for Macbeth, Macbeth and his wife are both in their own way evil. Macbeth's wife was the brains of the whole operation and she was the one who persuaded and tempted Macbeth into killing those people. Therefore, I believe that in this case, since Macbeth's wife tempted and practically forced Macbeth into killing those people, she is more evil. It does not mean that Macbeth is innocent, but he is less evil than his wife is. Macbeth did not have to kill those people and he did not have to do what his wife had told him to do. Since Macbeth did physically commit the crime and Macbeth's wife mentally encouraged Macbeth into killing those people, then they are both evil in their own ways. Macbeth is obviously evil for actually killing them and Macbeth's wife is evil for forcing and persuading Macbeth into killing them.
But for me, both whoever commits a crime and whoever encourages someone and plans out the crime for someone else to commit, are both equally evil. There was no excuse for Macbeth's actions, but he did kill those people. However, for some reason, I believe that Macbeth's wife is more evil in some weird way. She was the brains of this whole operation and really wanted Macbeth to become king. For example, if my brother tells me to go kill everyone in a bank and then steal all the money and run, and I do it, we are both evil. He told me what to do and I did it. There is no turning back and what I did is done. In conclusion, I believe that both the planner and the killer are both equally evil at all times. Unless, someone puts a gun to someone's head and tell them to go kill someone or else they would die. Then in this case, the person who put a gun to their head and forced them to kill is all evil.
I agree with you in the sense that both of them are evil, but I feel like the planner is more evil because the killer could just lose his or her mind in a second and commit an unforgivable crime.
There’s a reason why pre-meditated murder has a longer sentence than a heat of passion murder. The true evil in taking someone else’s life isn’t taking the shot, it’s the hours and days the murder spends plotting the incident. Assuming the actual killer has no original motive to kill, the planner is more evil. At that point, blaming the killer is like blaming the bullet of the gun he used. That’s not to say that the murderer should go unpunished, the fact that they agreed to steal someone’s life is reason enough to apprehend them. In order to have been manipulated, the thought would have to be twisted deep within the killers mind (Inception style) which would mean that he had the idea in him.
At Times Square, there was this store which had “BE STUPID” literally written all over it. Curious, we walked in and read why they wanted us to be stupid. Inside it said “Smart is the one with the plans. Stupid is the one with the story.” Where I’m going with this pointless anecdote is that a smart person can manipulate things to his advantage. The one who lets someone else control them is just plain stupid. The one with the plan is more evil, but truthfully if the killer was twisted into it, they deserve it.
(Back to Seriousness)
This leads into how other people can influence your morals. Hanging around the wrong people is like taking poison. You may or may not notice the damage it does to you, but over time it will eat away at you. We are products of our life experiences, shaped by the reaction of our mentalities and circumstances. If we allow people to chip away at who we are, piece by piece we lose ourselves. That’s why, unlike Duncan, we should choose our friends wisely and always stay on guard.
Allen, your blog was fantastic! I really like the way you set it up and explained your point. Yours was really interesting to read and i definitely agree with you on this. My favorite part was the last paragraph, you are completely right.
“Be good and you will be lonesome.”
“Goodness” and “badness” are such vague, black-and-white entities. Categorically speaking, I cannot say I am conclusively “good” or conclusively “bad.” Everyone knows themselves on a good day and on a bad day; we each know to what extent we are capable of goodness and badness: for some of us, the good actions in our life outweigh the bad, for others, the bad outweighs the good. I believe our internal “nature” –our souls, one could say—have some responsibility in determining us as a “good” or “bad” person, but ultimately, it is our actions toward ourselves, our actions towards others, our speech, and our thoughts that ultimately shape us as good or bad human beings. Naturally, though, I think humans are evil; coincidentally, as I say that, I am listening to a song that advocates this: “We were born to sin/We were born to sin/We don't think we're special, sir/We know everybody is/…We don't want to die/Or apologize/For our dirty bodies” (The Thermals-A pillar of salt). To a degree, I agree with Twain—being perpetually “good” can be quite dull. I suppose I have done my share of scandalous things to not be, according to Twain, considered “lonesome.”
I absolutely, firmly believe Lady Macbeth shows abounding evil; far more than Macbeth. Only Macbeth exclusively can be blamed for the initial thought of killing Duncan; that surely showed his true power-hungry character. However, Lady Macbeth essentially compelled him with the burden of going through with her plan, belittling him and questioning his manhood—which no man (clearly) appreciates. In the end, Macbeth went through with the malicious scheme, which of course makes you question his integrity; but at least he showed remorse. Lady Macbeth displayed no anguish in the slightest—in fact, she went back and finalized the job that Macbeth did not finish. I would, without a doubt, keep my independence and relinquish my happiness—I feel that happiness is easier attained than independence.
Pretty cool quote to start out your blog. I agree with you that those who try to be good can never truly make connections with others.
Nice quote, I would have to agree on how good and bad are vague and black and white. They appear as just words.
I love your quotation, but too bad that Twain does not define "good" for us. I also love how famous people say vague things so that in the end, we are the ones who make sense out of the sayings and admire how clever they are. It's like getting your fortune to say "something good will happen." Then we automatically think of the best thing that will happen, and we think to ourselves, "This is pretty accurate!" But no, there really wasn't any meaning behind that fortune telling or quotation. It's more like how you describe it, how everything lies in the gray area, and having boundaries seem to be generalizing things a bit too much.
I can relate with what you wrote because i to believe that we all have our good and bad days and can't just be classified as one or the other.
I think that the planner and the killer are at the same level of evilness. Logically speaking, if there is plan, there would not be action. So, we must think that the planner is more evil. However, the killer does have a choice to say “no”. Although Macbeth was forced by Lady Macbeth to do the murdering, but he could simply just leave his wife alone, and say “no”.
We cannot tell if one person is good or bad. They do not just put “I am good” or “I am bad” on their forehead. A good person can turn into a bad person due the surroundings. Macbeth was forced to kill Duncan, although it was not his first intention. On the other hand, a bad person can also turn to a good person soon after he realizes his mistakes. There is no true definition of goodness or evilness, and we cannot tell if one person is good or not.
We also cannot blame Duncan for his blindness. Duncan’s easily trust blinds him into the evilness. He is a good king, but he dies soon after the book started. Although “Good kings thrive; bad kings die”, Duncan does not fit into this and he was described as a good king. The people that are close to Duncan used his personality to kill him, and Duncan had nothing to do for this.
I think that you are right when you say that people always have the choice to refuse and say no. And that both the planner and killer are equally evil. I like it!!
I totally agreed with what you are saying. People are influenced by their surroundings. There is really no single definition on what a "good" person is.
I believe that the planner is more evil thank the killer. Even though the killer is the one who “kills”, the planner has to think of how, where, and when. The planner has to think into how to kill the person, but the killer just need to follow the actions. Also, the kill could be forced into killing like Macbeth. Macbeth didn’t want to kill the king, but his wife forced him. Not saying that a planner can’t be forced into planning a murder but in majority of the time, the planner is more evil than the killer.
I believe people can influence people’s goodness for better and for worse. An example for both of these is when I’m driving and I see someone lets me into the lane, I feel good and I in return let others into my lane when they need to, but this also works the other way around. If someone cuts me off or just keeps on speeding and won’t let me cut in, it puts me into a bad mood and it causes me to do the same. When most people get help from others, we tend to try and help out also because it puts us in a good mood and we would like to pass this feeling down. When others pick on you like picking a fight or steal from you, it puts us into a bad mood and causes us to do reckless this.
In this case and in many cases, you are right that the planner is more devious than the killer because they have to think of everything, while the killer only has to follow directions. What you said about people passing down feelings of happiness and hate are true depending on how others treat you is also extremely true.
If someone could offer me comfort and happiness, I would be willing to give up independence. For me, I don’t value independence as important as happiness, and therefore, I would be willing sacrifice independence for happiness. As long as I’m happy and comfortable with what I have, I’m always willing to give up everything else. When I fall into a relationship, it is reasonable to me if my boyfriend take control over my freedom. Same thing to my parents, they can take over my freedom as long as I’m offered the comfort and happiness I want.
I believe that other people can influence our “goodness” for better. I think that there isn’t any “perfect” in life. Everyone makes mistakes and has their own flaw. Therefore, it is a good thing that people influences each other. Everyone is being influence every day. Some are slowly influenced while others are influenced immediately. From a psychology view point, through children behaviors, every human being is being influenced every day by the surroundings. I think this is the reason why group of friends will always have similar thought and action. Through often hanging out with the same group of people, our action and the way we talk are slowly influenced.
If we were told to distinguish what is right from wrong or what is good from evil, how exactly are you suppose to set it apart? What makes people good or bad? Much of what I believe in regards to the goodness of this world and of this people is that not everyone born is necessarily a good person. What makes humans unbalanced on this plank is that each and every one of us perceives life in a certain way. Whether we were taught to do something a certain way, taught to act in a certain way, these various actions are what embellish the human beings and set them apart from one another. Influence plays a huge role in this because just the tiny urges and temptations can toss a life away or just plain out change as a person regardless of good or bad.
In many situations and circumstances, I can’t see a way to distinguish what is good from evil because to someone who has evil intentions may think that his actions serve him good and someone who has good intentions may be perceived as a bad thing sometimes. It is truly a paradox in a sense. In the end though, it is what each of us individually think of how to act in this world, how we carry ourselves, the way we perceive life which makes us good or bad. Conceptually, our souls have a major impact in the balance. As our souls are ever changing by influence and perception. Everyone possesses the capabilities to act out of order and in many cases that's how humans are in this world. We see things a certain way and naturally act upon it however we choose, good or evil.
Good and bad are simply products of someone's perceptions. It is hard to quantify what defines a good person versus a bad person. Here's an example. Imagine that you are a teacher. And within your class you have students who are exclusively focused on the grade, just getting the "A". Those students will do whatever you, as their teacher, ask them to do. On the other hand you have other students who couldn't care less about the grade, but instead are into understanding the lesson, and just trying to have fun in the process. Those students who are chasing the "A" are of course, the most well behaved students in class, in essence, the "teachers' pets". The students who are focused on the learning, willing to take risks, and putting themselves out there for criticism, and maybe even being disruptive on occasion, are perceived to be the "bad ones". In fact, they are exactly what a teacher should be cultivating, that thirst for knowledge. You see, the real reward is learning the material and being able to apply it later in life whenever needed. The grade of "A" itself is a hollow token; the knowledge gained is useful, and fulfilling in so many ways. The fun-loving and sometimes unruly students would often times be considered a "problem" in class depending on the teacher; and the compliant students chasing the grade would probably be perceived as the "model" students. Good and bad is a judgment and it will vary based on who is doing the judging.
I agree with you and also stated the fact that everyone has a different idea of what is considered good and what is considered bad, everyone thinks differently and has their own opinions.
What if happiness means freedom? And the comfort means no confinement? IS there really a deal for exchange? In my life, independence kept me going. As a “needy” person, I tend to rely on friends and family, but I realized how confined I was under their shadows. In return for the love and comfort they gave, I felt like I was manipulated by their thoughts and decisions. Most importantly I was not happy even though I found what I wanted. I finally realized that independence and freedom are priceless, and I can find happiness on my own. Does happiness equal to independence and freedom? In my case, it does. So…no deal.
Since no one can be charged for “thought crime,” I feel like the planner is more evil. No one can measure the level of evilness of a plan, a thought, a mentality. So, what is the definition of evil? I believe evil means not following the basic morals of the human conscience, which generally means harm. I believe the planner is more evil because he or she plans the idea of killing. The planner actually considered killing someone while the killer only performs the action. In Macbeth, if Lady Macbeth did not urge Macbeth’s temptation to become king, he would never have done it. Of course, the killer IS evil for performing immoral actions for personal desire. However, back to the question: Is futile gesture meaningless if the outcome cannot be changed? In other words, is the process of an action completely meaningless? While Lady Macbeth plans the killing process, Macbeth only completes the murder, so who deserves more credit? The creator, initiator, tempter? Or the simply the follow?
Many people felt like leaves in the Siddhartha unit, being easily influenced and affected by others. I believe that everyone was born neither good nor evil, but it’s the ego and superego of the human mind that determines the “goodness” in a person. Superego is the mentality of human morals, black and white. Ego is basically the balance of gratification and the sense of morality. If many people are leaves, this means that they can easily be influenced by any advice or temptation. As for better or for worse, depends on the advice or temptation. This is the challenge that everyone faces, this is the point to see which way the ego balance would tilt: desire or morals?
I agree with you on the indepedence answer. I don't think anyone can provide happiness to us, espcially when freedom means happiness? And I remember your stand and deliever, it was awesome :] But I feel like the planner is more evil because I think the process is what matters more than the outcome. You are not evil though haha :]
OOPS! This comment is supposed to be under #33 Michelle H.'s blog post...hehe..My BAD
In the first sentence, I meant to say "freedom means happiness". Sorry.
I like your idea even though some are different than mine. But, I like how you giving questions. I really have to think hard on those questions. Anyways, good job!
I would say that I am a good person; however that is only from my point of view. The definition of goodness changes from person to person. My “good” could be totally different from someone else’s “good”. A member of Al-Qaida probably thinks that the ideals and morals I live by are terrible and vice versa. But because a member of Al-Qaida and I each have different perspectives on the subject of good and evil, we are each good according to our own definition. This begs the question: which one of us is true? Which person has the right definition of good and the right definition of evil?
I believe that each person has the right definition to begin with, but as some people grow up, their perception of good changes. They are taught a different definition by someone else. Outside influences change their perception. A young man growing up in Nazi Germany was most likely told that persecuting other races was the right thing to do, and he was being a good person by being a Nazi. Some people might be bad according to the majority of the world’s perspective of goodness because a minority of others tell them that what they do is good. Therefore, other people do not affect actual goodness, but only change the perception of good and evil for others.
The planner is more evil than the killer because they are capable of doing bad things without having to actually do it themselves. A person who kills without thinking about it usually doesn’t do it with any kind of cruel intention because it wasn’t planned before it was acted upon. The planner doesn’t see the act as a bad thing because after all they are planning it in the first place. When Macbeth kills Duncan he automatically feels terrible about because he realizes that it wasn’t a good idea, but Lady Macbeth feel any remorse that there’s a dead man in her house because she planned it. That also doesn’t go to say that killing someone without any cruel intention is any better. It also makes weird sense that Lady Macbeth would put her intelligence toward an evil act and using her husband to do it because women then didn’t have the freedom to even a voice. The only time she was in control is when she was manipulating her husband to kill Duncan or by questioning his masculinity. Now women have more freedom to actually use their intelligence and put it toward a good thing instead of something evil. In this case she sees a chance to be on top and takes it because she can get away with it.
I agree about the planner being more evil than the actual killer, but only if the actual killer was forced to act in such a way.
Although I agree Duncan does not meet all the criteria for being a “good king,” I do not think we should necessarily blame him for appointing Macbeth as the new Thane of Cawdor. I should probably first start off by saying that Duncan is a pretty good person. One can see someone as being good based on their actions, and whether or not those actions affect others positively or negatively too. I feel Duncan fits this description, as he chooses the best candidate to fill the Thane of Cawdor position immediately available to him. Macbeth seems like the best choice for Duncan to choose as Macbeth just helped lead the defenses against Norway’s attack. That is not to ignore the fact that Duncan has the quality of being far too trusting, as he obviously did not know the previous Thane of Cawdor well enough to predict the ensuing events. It is also apparent in the speed with which he elects his new Thane of Cawdor. However, it really isn’t until the witches and Lady Macbeth get involved in the plot that things go south for Duncan. At that point, I feel like the situation is far out of Duncan’s hands, and that there is nothing he can do to protect himself. He is merely a good person, taken advantage of at the cost of his life, by the evil world he lives in.
I truly believe a person’s “goodness” can be greatly influenced by those around them. This can easily be observed in Lady Macbeth’s influence in Macbeth’s life. Macbeth starts out as a good person, whose loyalties initially lay with Duncan. After all, he just fought a battle for the survival of his country against Norway for the king. Unfortunately, Lady Macbeth’s cool, calculating demeanor slowly twists Macbeth’s mind into finally murdering the king. Just as Lady Macbeth influences Macbeth’s life in an evil way, the exact opposite is quite possible with goodness. I see this in my life, as I believe I live a rather good life. That is tribute, though, to my parent’s massive influence on my life since birth, on how to live probably, in a way that honors my friends, family, and most importantly, God.
One lesson that I've learned in life is that nobody is perfect. That statement has reflected my own opinion on what is "good". People are imperfect and therefore, good people can make mistakes. Good people can do bad things, but that doesn't make them "bad". A person's nature is based on their actions, ideals, and beliefs. A couple bad actions or ideas does not fully change who they are or turn them from good to bad. I've known many people who have made mistakes in their life that they've regretted, but they are still great people. They refused to allow a couple bad decisions ruin their life and I still believe them to be good people. Just because people make bad choices, does not make them bad people. Otherwise, nobody in our world would be considered "good" people.
Everyone's definition of "good" is different, so there is no true definition of "good". Personally, I feel that I am a good person. I have a strong set of morals that I base my life on and try to follow them as closely as possible. However, I am not perfect and I constantly find myself making bad decisions. However, those decisions do not make me bad, but simply help me grow and learn from my mistakes. As I progress through life, I feel that I will grow stronger towards being a "good" person. My trials and hardships will allow me to grow as a person and help me mature into a responsible and devoted adult.
To me someone considered "good" is someone that doesn't do things that will only benefit himself. Someone that is willing to do the right thing instead of following the crowd. Someone that knows how to do wrong and is capable of it, but chooses to do the right thing. Doing good is going above and beyond what's expected of you not because you have to or it will make you look good, but because you choose to. In Duncan's case, he can't be blamed for his blindness because that's who he is. People are stubborn and aren't willing to change unless they absolutely have to. It is like him to trust others easily and not see the bad in others because he was raised that way and that's what he was taught. Until someone turns on him and he experiences betrayal first hand, there's no way he can learn to not put so much trust in others. He has to be learn from his mistakes in order to better himself.
I believe that it's our nature that determines whether we are good or bad. Everyone is different and everyone has different personalities. Some people learn the difference between good and bad and how to become one or the other, and some people simply have their own personal beliefs and have different standards of what's good and what's bad. My good can be a whole different idea than what you think is good, so it really just depends on who you are and how you perceive it. It is possible for people to change from good to bad, because it is ultimately a choice, you're not born good or bad, some people just don't know how to be one or the other.
People tend to feed off of others. If I see someone that is good and helps others, I think "he must feel awesome knowing that he makes a difference in others peoples lives", and that influences me to do good for others. Also, it can be the same case vise versa. I think most people can relate to this, they were good friends or knew someone that was sincerely good and one of the nicest kids ever in middle school or freshman year, and now when you see them, they're a completely different person. Especially at this age, so you see it all the time. People act in certain ways and do certain things in order to fit in. It might not be them, but they do it anyways. People are easily influenced by others, because it benefits themselves.
I totally agree with what you're saying about both your definition of a good person and how our nature does determine if we're good or bad.
The decisions we make shape the nature others perceive of us. A possibility to alter one’s nature exists but seldom occurs as we tend to make our choices with consistency. Let’s say I had to choose between raisins or chocolate chips on a cookie – I know what you’re thinking, but for the sake of this example pretend chocolate chips aren’t favored by large. If I chose the chocolate chips, one would expect me to take chocolate over raisins time and time again. These expectations would prove realistic for the most part, but there can be exceptions. In the case that I chose chocolate chip cookies first and raisins second, the possibility that I could prefer raisins over chocolate chips exists – though it’d be a slim chance for me. Changes in nature may lack importance – like changes in cookie preferences – but they exist nonetheless.
Serious shifts in nature aren’t impossible, but they very rarely happen. In Macbeth’s case, he fought for his country wholeheartedly as a noble warrior yet he still murdered the king for power. I don’t believe that Macbeth’s actions were the result of his soul; he chose to murder Duncan on his own accord, overwhelmed by his will to gain power. In the perspective of the general audience – at least at this point of the story – Macbeth now appears to play the role of a villain. The switch from hero to villain happened in a single action: the assassination of the king. He made the decision to kill him for his own personal gain; his conscience failed to restrain him and his soul remained idle. The foundation of one’s character consists mainly of one’s choices.
I believe that our choices do reflect who we are. Macbeth is a good person he is just a person who is easy to manipulate. This doesn’t make him bad it just makes those around him bad because they would rather convince him to do the wrong thing rather then the right thing. Macbeth does have good intention he knows the difference between right and wrong, however he is just easy to use and like I said earlier easy to manipulate. This is a reason why I do believe that people around us do affect our nature and how we act. I don’t usually like to think negatively but in this case I have to say that people affect our nature in a bad way rather then a good way. Macbeth is a good example of this being pressured into killing his king who he risked his life for. Another reason why I believe that our peers affect our nature more poorly is because of peer pressure. Not only do you give into what your peers say if you were to listen to them it also shows that your self control is low. There are positive sides of peers I just feel like there are more negative.
I sort of feel bad Macbeth because he's so easily manipulated; he isn't even strong enough to say no. I hate how he lets his wife step all over him. Maybe it's just because I would rather disappoint the person I love than to hurt others in order to succeed. Or maybe it's just because I don't have an evil mentality...
I agree with what you said about peers. I also like to believe the good in everyone and thing positively about everything but there are things that just appear to me as wrong. Peer pressure is an example. I see peer pressure more negatively than positively.
I agree with you. Macbeth does have a good heart. He is just being manipulated by the witches and cannot see what is right and wrong. However, I believe we can also be affected by our surroundings positively through their help.
If someone comes up to me and offered me happiness in exchange for my independence, I don’t think I would take it. Independence is one of the components that make us happy. Being independent allows us to be ourselves and to do the things we please. We have experiences that allow us to achieve happiness. The older we are, we make wiser decisions, and the more happiness we are capable to achieve. I don't think I would be the same without independence. We are the one to choose which path to go on in life. It allows us to have opportunities to learn more about ourselves.
Lady Macbeth is worse than the killer, Macbeth. Women back then did not have much power and freedom. The only way they would have power was by having a man who has power. Lady Macbeth tries to gain power through Macbeth who easily can be influenced. She is using him as a tool.
I will become a better person as I grow and experience through life. I am and will learn more each and everyday. Wisdom comes with age and I take every experience in life as an opportunity to learn. We were born to be innocence. As we get older, we change because of our surroundings. I don't think anyone would like to become something worse. Learning something new is always a good experience.
You said wisdom comes with age... I would have to argue that wisdom comes with experience. But with age, you get experience, so either way its the same...
I like what you said about lady being worse that Macbeth himself. I agree that she is selfish and just using him as a tool for power. Macbeth is such a pushover...
I do not think we should blame Duncan for his blindness. He is still a good person, and I think calling him a bad character because he too easily trusts someone is not right. Maybe he is too good of a character that he trusts people so easily. He is a good example of a good person being taken advantage of because he is too kind and trustful. I believe our choices determine our nature. The influences and mentorship we receive are the key factors in shaping our values, morals, and nature.
It is very possible for a person’s nature to change. But it takes a while for someone to change. A good person can turn bad, and a bad person can turn good. It is all decided by our pressures, the environment we live in, and the incidents we are faced with everyday. For example, if a good person is faced with bad influences, and is surrounded by negative and bad people he can turn bad. He can turn into a person they never were in the beginning. I think humans are born bad, but the influences and teachings make us good. So when we are surrounded by bad people and negative influences we can go back to being bad. Same thing can happen to a bad person. Events can pressure a bad person to good. He can either realize his bad deeds or find his conscience and be consumed by guilt to be a good person. As we age and gain more experiences I think a human being can go both ways, we can either become a worse person or a better one. It all depends on the types of experiences and the type of people we meet.
Yeah, I agree, Duncan doesn't deserve to die because he trusts people too easily. If he wasn't plotted against, he could have been a good king.
I want to kill Him…
I want Him dead…
God just looking at Him makes me want to kill Him…
I just want to walk up to him and - NO! I can’t do it myself. I’ll get in trouble! There must be another way!
Ahah! That man over there. He could be of some use to me.
“Hey you… Now listen to me. I’ve kidnapped your wife and children. If you EVER want to see them again, just do exactly what I tell you to….”
The man shot Him.
Ahah! That man over there. He could be of some use to me.
“Hey how can I help you?”
“You see that guy over there? What do you think of him?”
“Him? I hate his guts. His face just pisses me off.”
“What if I told you, I could help you get rid of him? Interested?”
“Of course! Count me in!”
“Haha great. Just do exactly what I say. I have a plan in mind…”
The man shot Him.
Who is more evil? The planner, or the killer? For this particular question, I can’t answer it one way or the other. It can go either way because there are infinitely many different situations that determine who is actually more “evil.” For the two different situations demonstrated above, both have a planner and a killer. In situation A, the man was forced to kill the target. Unless he is willing to let his wife and children die, he had to obey everything the planner said. I do not condone of his actions, but I understand. His intentions were not evil. In this situation, the planner is definitely more evil than the killer. In situation B, the man happens to strongly hate the target too. The man and planner collaborate together and the man kills the target. In this situation, both the planner and the killer are evil. Whichever one is more evil depends on the one who had a stronger desire to kill the target. There are many situations. This question goes back to the philosophical baseline about actions and their motifs. Even though the killer did the action to kill, the true meaning lies on the motivation, the planner. That is why I lean towards the planner to be the more evil one. Most of the time, the planner will be evil to some degree for planning it. But whether or not he is more evil than the killer himself, depends on the killer’s motivation.
I agree that we can't always answer these sorts of questions because there are so many different situations we face and we never know the motives of everyone around us. It's hard to assume things correctly
People most definitely can influence our vision of right and wrong; when we are around people for too long we start developing a comfort in the things they do and so we conform and accept it. We usually barrier ourselves with excuses when we switch our standards so that when people question you and say, "what happened to you?", your reply would be, "I'm the same me, I've just realized that...". But deep down, we always hold on to somethings that we originally were; we never let go of the sight we see through our original glasses. Even when surrounded by excuses we still know why the excuses are there and who we really are in our own eyes. That is how we know if we're good or bad; if we make excuses just to fit into the changes, we're not doing something right.
I've never seen myself as a bad person nor have I counted myself as a good person. I believe that there isn't a specific way of measuring goodness because it changes in your life and it really depends on the situations you experience. I think that I'm a good person when I offer my help or when I feel sympathetic towards someone. I feel that I'm a bad person when I cheat or lie or do something just to anger them. All the decisions that I've made in life added up would probably balance out into a mixture of good and bad. Frankly, I can't really discern if my life is weighing towards either sides.
I agree with you. Only we truly understand ourselves and our goodness and evilness are already set within our hearts. The excuses are just something that cover who we are.
I agree with you. People try to lie to themselves, but no matter how much they try to fool themselves, they will always know the truth deep down inside.
Macbeth is way too easily swayed to one side or the other for my liking. His outside is rock solid, with the hardened exterior of a noble warrior, but his inside is like jelly. He doesn't know what he's doing unless someone tells him. He is not evil, but nor is he good. I think he is a neutral mind that is easily persuaded.
The witches plant an idea inside Macbeth's head when they meet him after the battle. Macbeth, being so gullible, believed that he could actually be king, even after he decided against it. Then to top it all off, his wife comes in and forces him back on the path of murder. She is the evil one here.
This shows that a person's goodness can change and it can be tampered with. Macbeth's morals, which aren't very established in the first place, are changed by a few incidents in a matter of days. I believe that morals are connected to one's soul, so in a sense, Macbeth's soul was changed very easily. He was a noble fighter, only killing for his country, never thinking of himself, then the thought of becoming a "10" crosses his path. He is swayed into it, and is changed forever. His morals, his soul are changed. He kills for greed, power, and wealth. God sees the changing of his soul, and warns people of Scotland with an everlasting night.
Duncan does not deserve to die. He could have never seen past Macbeth's hard outer shell to realize how weak he was inside. It is hard to see past it. That is why only the witches and his own wife are able to. Duncan would have never seen it coming. Sure he was a putting himself in that position, but he thought he was in trusted hands. As Shakespeare says, Duncan was a good king. He just got in the way of some magic women, a crazy wife, and a very unstable young man named Macbeth.
I agree with you that a person's goodness can change and it can be tampered with.
If I had been denied independence my entire life I would thirst for this influence just as strongly. Whenever people are denied something they want the longer they are denied their thirst for it should grow stronger. Also, I do look forward to the days of controlling my own destinies with anticipation. I look forward because I have wanted to be able to do whatever I want without anyone controlling me.
I think that the planner is more evil because they are the one that thought up the plan on what to do. Also, the planner is the one who would have originally had the intention to do it. Just because they are the killer it does not mean that they are bad they could just be someone following orders. I think that the killer s also evil to because they killed someone but they are not as evil as the planner. All humans are capable of being evil because we can all do evil things. I think we should evaluate the evilness of a person based on their actions but there are certain things you have to take into account to like if they were forced to and like why they did it.
We can tell that some people are good just based on how we feel about them when we see them. Also, we can tell if someone is good or bad based on their overall actions that they do.
I think that our choices determine our nature because the things we do will determine who we are. Also, it is possible for a person’s nature to change. For example I can be a good person and do all good things which will make my nature good but if the next day and on I go kill people, steal, lie, and just do other bad things I think that my nature will become evil.
I can’t conclusively say that I am a “good person” because I have done bad things in my life too so I think I am in the middle of good and bad but leaning a little more toward good. I am basing my response to my actions, and my thoughts. I do think I will become a better person as I age and gain experience and knowledge because from all of that I will be able to learn and find out what the right thing to do is.
what if someone wishes to be denied to the priveliges we enjoy in our life, then they are not capable of being influenced, becuase they are happy with who they are right now.
To me personally I believe that the planner is more evil than the person who actually commits a crime. I believe that the person who commits the crime, at least most of them, were initially innocent and are probably forced into doing something horrible by the planner. The planner is much more evil because he or she caused someone else’s demise and suffering and then betrayed them by letting them take the blame, thus the planner is both evil and treacherous.
I believe that our choices determine our nature, because I believe it is our will to act on our conscience that ultimately determines our nature. When ever someone good or bad commits something bad, deep down they themselves know that he or she did something bad; however, most are unwilling to act on their conscience which is telling them to stop, because they are either a coward or just believe what’s done is done. I believe it is possible for people to change form good to evil or evil to good. Those who act on their conscience become good by overcoming their cowardice and believing in themselves; no matter how evil the person initially is, it is still possible for him or her to become good, it is just how he or she chooses.
I believe that someone else can influence my goodness for the worse, because I am very susceptible to my vulnerabilities. Despite my best efforts, sooner or later someone will find my vulnerabilities, and if he or she pressures me I will be willing to do anything. For example, if someone holds my family captive and pressures me to kill someone else in exchange for my family’s freedom, I will comply, because I love my family and without them I will have no direction in life and life it self will become pointless. My vulnerabilities are those which keep me alive and I will do anything to stay alive that is why other people can influence my nature.
I personally define a good person to be someone who does not harm the others or his surroundings. He might sometimes be mischievous and does something that others consider as “bad,” but he is essentially kind-hearted and harmless. A good person will constantly show signs of goodwill during his evil actions. In Macbeth’s case, he is directed by his wife to kill the king; he lets his greed gets the best of him. His greediness and desire for power and recognition make him overlook his kind soul. This transient confusion of identity can not be used to identify one from good and evil. On the other hand, Lady Macbeth and the witches prompt Macbeth to murder Duncan. Even though their motives are also greed and lust, their actions are ruthless and show no sign of kindness. They do not regret their sinister actions.
Although I sometimes do some evil things as well, I don’t consider myself an evil person. I would be mean to or make jokes of my friends for fun. I think the most horrible thing that I do is that I lie to my parents a lot, but it is mainly because of my parents’ attitude. They are, in my opinion, more on the conservative side. Therefore, whenever they ask me what I am doing or where I am at, I would slightly alter the truth if necessary so that they wouldn’t be worrying about me. Besides, I would always tell my sister the truth so that she can take care of me. For example, I might be at my friend’s house playing video games but I tell my parents that I am doing a project for English, or I will be eating dinner with my friends but I tell my parents that I am still at Chanteurs rehearsal. Therefore, I don’t think that I am evil; I am just a cunning kid.
I agree with what you think about how people who dont harm others are good, nicely written!
I agree with you. A good person can have a not so good feeling inside of them which is considered bad but it doesn't make them bad because honestly everyone has that. Nice work!
I'd say the planner most definitely is the bad guy in the situation. The kills the hit man is ordered to do, is not personal to him, its the planner that thought of everything. The killer just does the dirty work. Sure the killer is doing the bad stuff, but why does his intent matter? I remember in Inception, they talked about thoughts genuinely being your own, and not someone else's. It's not Macbeth's idea to murder, its the lady's... The idea of really killing someone is just as bad as actually doing it, if not more.
I hate being spoon fed. I hate the teachers who tell me the answer. When I'm working in a group, I hate the people who always share the answers, well... sometimes. I like to search and discover the right answers and the right paths. It makes me feel successful and proud that this is what I did. Climbing up the mountain and looking down is totally different than having someone fly your up their. Theres no point in reaching the final success point, if you don't work for it. What's to enjoy when its handed to you?
You say the killer just does the dirty work, but what if the killer is also the planner?
Then the killer is evil for planning the plan to kill the killer's victim, which makes the killer ultimately a planner who kills.
Now what if the killer killed a victim who is also a killer but is used to kill that killer's planner and that planner also want to kill another person by himself but that person wants to kill that killer who wants to kill the first killer, then who's evil?
I agree that in a planner-killer situation, the planner would be the evil one because he or she is forcing the killer to do the his or her dirty deed(s).
I believe that planner is more evil than the killer, because planner is the one who in changer of everything, including the control of the killer. And killer is just a tool for the planner. But doesn’t mean that the killer is innocent, because although planner is one who in changer of everything, but the killer definitely have the right to choose not follow the planner once he/she find out it was a wrong thing to do, but most of them don’t. So when the judges are deciding who is going to take the responsibility of killing the man, the killer can’t never say he/she is innocent, because he/she is the one who did this. But overall, the planner is way more evil than the killer, because the planner killed people by using other people’s hand. The planner didn’t have to do anything, but to plan everything out, and told the killer to follow the procedures. So basically the planner can just sit home and watching television, and the next day, the man he/she want to kill will be killed in somewhere that police can’t find out.
No matter what type of person are you, you are not born to be that type of person. Everyone is born to be good, no one is born to be evil. And our choices are determine by our “nature”, we made a choice, not because someone told us to. It is because we want to make that choice. But how can we tell that some people are good and some people are bad? I don’t think we can actually tell that, because most people determine people’s goodness and badness base on their actions and the way they treat other people. However, there are some people who will act like they are good people. For example, just like those evil person who will hide their real self up in order to get closer to the target they want to reach. But there are still a lot real good people out there in world. So basically to determine a good people and a bad people is all depend on yourself, depend on your own determination.
great point of the planner being the one in control of the killer wish I included that in mine
The planner or the killer. I would say the planner they may not be committing the crime themselves but they arranged for the killing to happen. The killer is still bad for agreeing to kill but they never had the thought to kill. The planner is even worse because not only are they evil, and a killer but they are also a coward.
I don't think I'm able to label myself as good or bad because I'm different everyday and I'm changing everyday. I try to do what i think is good everyday, but there are times when I do bad things knowingly. I personally don't think that makes me a bad person or a good one for that matter it makes me human. As i get older every year I feel like I'm getting wiser too I've been through more, known more people and have better insight which allows me to make better decisions. We can all make the choice to get better or worse with age, I believe it all depends on what's important to the person.
Other people can definitely distract us and temporarily affect our goodness but it is our own decision to act the way we do. There will always be other people and other options for us to choose, but ultimately we are the one choosing.
If someone is willing to trade comfort and happiness for my independence, I would gladly accept. Personally, I think happiness can only achieve when I am with others. Being with people around and accomplish many things with them often make my happiness and comfort become possible to myself. I believe that, my comfort and happiness is more valuable than my independence because independence would only make one lonely, and honestly I do not like the feeling of being lonely.
I think the definition of “goodness” is about how one look at the things around one’s self rather than the action one is committing. What is goodness? Helping the elderly to cross the road, pick up the trash wherever you see, or even helping out the community by volunteering? These examples all are just “actions” but not attitudes and feeling. One could be doing one of these things while thinking of committing a bad deed later on. It’s somehow ironic about the definition of “goodness” since no one can really define what is good and bad. However, there are people in the world trying to do the best they can to make the community better, and I think that would somehow be a part of being a “good” person. Furthermore, I think one can affect one’s “goodness” by affecting their thoughts. The society around us shapes who we are now, and by making more “good” people in helping out the society, we first need to change ourselves to make the community and better place and thus would produce more of these “good” people.
I agree that happiness comes from sharing with others. Just as Scrooge ended up sharing with other people to feel happy, everyone should learn to share to maximize the amount of happiness.
Our conscience helps us make our choices, but at the same time, our choices do determine our nature. Beowulf is portrayed as a hero, he made the choice to plunge into danger, to be the hero; he built his character and supported it. The choices we make determine who we are. They express who we are in ways words can’t, like the saying goes, “actions speak louder than words”.
It is possible for a person’s nature to change because we are influenced by our surroundings and the people we interact with. For example if you take a kid who has never drank alcohol and throw him in a group of people who do drink, with time and peer pressure, that kid will try drinking. It is almost inevitable, but it is ultimately up to him whether he succumbs to the pressure, or influences them otherwise.
I believe that both are close to equally evil. For one to sit and plan out a way to kill another is time consuming and mind boggling. It takes perseverance and mental coordination to map out and mentally execute a plan thinking of multiple different outcomes from different scenarios. On the other hand, for a killer to take someone’s life is dreadful, however, slightly less evil.
People can always change their nature. It’s not hard but then again it is not easy. It’s like switching from a PC to a Mac. You got used to that identity for quite a while until there is a point in your life when you feel that can be difficult but also necessary, not for yourself but for others as well. For a evil person to become good is difficult because in the human mind people often remember the bad things about you more than the good so it’s up to you to kind of “redeem yourself” to gain their trust in you. Now for a good person becoming evil natured, it doesn’t take much.
I think I am a good person. I mean I rarely lie, cheat or steal. If I had to rate those three, I think I do more lying than anything else, second is stealing and I just steal music, and computer programs. But hey, who doesn’t download a torrent these days? So I'm not perfect, nobody in this world is. I did regrettable things in my life but overall I still consider myself as part of the good guys.
Honestly I don’t think we can tell, it just what we see and how the present themselves. We can’t know for sure unless we’re in their minds and we can actually. But that’s not really how people think when they first meet them. I for one believe people are good at heart but something is (I guess) in the way of that. I don’t blame Duncan for his blindness. He’s heard of Macbeth’s goodness and such and probably thought it was a nice gesture for him to invite him over. Like any other person would do they would accept the kind gesture instead of being rude and refusing it.
I believe that our choices determine our nature or nature determines our choices. I believe it depends on what background you have or where you’re coming from or what environment you had to live in. I think anyone could change. My friend use to say “people don’t change, they just become more of what they are” I believe that’s quite true in a way. I believe no one is pure evil. I think evil comes from the environment in which they lived in. They might have grown up thinking this is right and this is wrong.
I believe I am a good person at heart. There can be times where I can be selfish, frustrated, impatient, or mean, but when I really think back on it I feel like it was wrong of me to be. As I grow, I believe I will become a better person because as we grow, we gain more knowledge. For example, grandparents were once young, they made foolish decision, or when they were younger, they were selfish and wanted the good things for themselves but as they grew older they learn that they need to give and give up what they want for others, for example their children and grandchildren.
I believe others can influence my goodness for better and for worse. Like I said before I think it depends on who I am around or what I’m around that change my views. But hopefully where I am will help my goodness for the better.
I also agree that choice we make determines who we are. No matter how much we are influenced by others, in the end, our choices shape our final shapes of human nature.
Even though people are born with certain traits and personalities, it is not possible that these natural characteristics can’t change. There has always been a debate about nature versus nurture, and there is evidence from both sides that both sides are the same. For example, left handedness is something that cannot be changed by any environmental factors. However, there are some societies in the Asian culture that try to change left-handers to right-handers because they think that right-handers are “normal.” This is an example of how it is possible for a person’s “nature” to change. Also, there are lots of factors in which how a person’s “nature” can change. One of the biggest factors is definitely “love.” Family members, friends, or a lover can easily be the biggest influence on a person.
The sociocultural studies in psychology present the Social Identity Theory, which suggests how “evil” people can become good, or good people can become “evil”. Other people can definitely influence the “goodness” in me, because a lot of things I do in my life are for the people I love. The things I do aren’t necessarily for better or for worse. A lot of times I do them simply because my loved ones want me to. For example, my parents have had a big influence on my life, along with my older sister and my friends. Sometimes I believe that it is because of my friends’ positive competitive attitudes that I want to work hard and fight for my dreams. However, sometimes it is also because of my friends that I set goals that are too high for me to reach. I believe that there is no “good” or “bad.” These concepts are based on personal opinions, and cultural differences. Actions and thoughts are two very different things. People can think one way and act another, but ultimately what you do determines who you are.
The choices we make do determine our nature, but in essence it is a much more complex underlining than just making a decision – there is thought, your consciousness, and your “soul” that potentially help you to decipher this or that.
Being produced with a “good” conscious/soul does not automatically give you the key to heaven. Throughout one’s life there are various opportunities in which one can destroy this make up of a “good” person specifically because of the decisions chosen. Hence, the most polite, straight A, clean cut, and well rounded person can snap. If a person were to have been known for the previous description let’s say that perhaps as a older man one day he cracked, but not just having a few too many drinks – big time mistake(for a more dramatic and real life effect) – ends up raping a woman. Afterwards is truly draped with remorse and regret; acknowledges that he did something terrible. Is he still a good man who just made a really bad mistake, or is he now someone who is inhumane and forever be known as a disgusting being in this eerie society? Think for a second in depth analyzing this from every view point – the girl, her parents, his parents, and an outsider. Now does your answer to this question determine what type of person you are labeled as? Through my eyes this man would now be known as a bad person. Although I almost feel bad to categorize him there, in my heart I just can not understand what would drive him to act in such a way. Such a pure being with clear intelligence breaks down to cause never ending trauma to someone else’s life is not equivalent to a good person in my book.
Although I am harsh to take one’s prized possession of being a good person I still leave myself open to optimizing. One who is tattooed with a “bad” soul can evolve to a “good” one, but only within certain and special circumstances. I have an aunt named Darla (my mom’s sister), who has been labeled as a brat since birth. As she reached her teens she slipped up and fell in the life of a druggie alongside with her older brothers and sisters who introduced her – not just weed, and alcohol – that is not how she nor they functioned, went all or nothing type of thing; cocaine, aderal, meth, k, and some others I probably don’t even know exist. My mom is one of seven children and was the only one who didn’t go past experimenting with weed, my grandma’s boyfriends included. Although Darla was the youngest and my mother’s baby sister and I watched as a four year old as she tore my mother’s heart apart. Fortunately, with the help of my father, my parents got my aunt Darla to agree to go to rehab; they paid for all the bills not just once, but the three relapses that soon fell after. Now, my aunt Darla is such a huge part of my life, in fact someone I admire not because she overcame such a rough lifestyle, but because she honestly is always there for me. When I don’t feel comfortable talking to my mom about something I don’t hesitate to go to her about it knowing that she won’t inform my mother of every last word spoken. She is truly a beautiful human being.
If someone offered me comfort and/or happiness in exchange for my independence, I would accept the deal because I rather have two points than just one point closer to the center of my star. Comfort is my security and happiness is my love for the two points that I am willing to gain by sacrificing my independence. This is also a win-win situation for me because I am not that independent. I do not have a job to support myself and I have to rely on my family to support me. But by gaining comfort, I can spend quality time with my family before I do go become and independent. I would also do anything to receive happiness and to make spread my happiness onto others. Even though my independence is gone, I can still rebuild it with the comfort and happiness I gained by shaping my goals and achieving them.
The planner would be the evil one because he is the person planting the seed of the idea inside of the killer, which forces the killer into acting on that idea. Without the planner, the killer wouldn't have even became a killer in the first place. This situation can relate to what Jigsaw does in the first Saw movie. Jigsaw forces a guy into kidnapping a wife and a child or else he would be killed. The 'killer' does not want to die and does whatever he can to survive, which is following Jigsaw's orders. Planners are the ones with the evil minds and they are the cause of changing innocent civilians into killers. The psychological effect that the killers take in is very powerful and will overcome almost all of the soon-to-be-killers.
wouldnt you miss having your independence?
I cant imagine having to rely on other people. when i was younger, i could, but now i am so used to having only myself to rely on. others seem to be unreliable which wouldnt make me happy
Thanks to those of you who submitted your writing punctually, and have a wonderful Winter Break!
If someone offered me comfort or happiness in exchange for my independence I think that I would take it simply because my goal in life is to be happy. In my opinion it's quote contradictory to be both comfortable and happy yet not independent because to me happiness and comfort include independence. However assuming that these are separate my ultimate goal in life is to be happy. If I was happy why would it matter whether or not I was independent or not? Why change when we could just be happy th way we are?
Also the person who planned the killing would be the evil one because they're the instigator. They're the one whom started it all and even planted the idea to begin with. For example Hitler planned and organized the killings of millions of Jews yet he himself never killed a Jew. Does this mean that he isn't guilty of his crimes? Of course not! He's just as guilty if not more guilty then the others for having organized the holocaust.
Adding on more cause I just noticed how short mine was.
I think that often times it also depends on the situation in which the crime is happening. For example there are times when the killer is more responsible then the person who planned it. Majority of the time though it's the planner who is most responsible for the crime being committed. In war it's always the leaders whom are held responsible in the end and not the basic foot soldiers for the deaths of millions of people.
In my last year’s US History honors class, Mr. Beckwith talked about the core values – the values which form the foundation on which we set as the basis of our behaviors. I believe that core values determine a good person from a bad person; good person sets adequate core values and succeed in following them while bad person fails to follow his/her core values. Whether the values set are very impressive or petty, one who behaves based on his/her core values can be considered a good person, as following core values keeps honesty, earnestness, discipline, and many other beneficial factors. In the society, people’s goodness is judged by whether they followed the rules set by the society in democratic way. For individuals, they should judge themselves as good or bad through how well they followed the core values they set to follow.
I can become a bad person as I age, not through extra knowledge, but through experiencing and self-disciplining. Through 18 years of my life, I have learned a lot. However, I do not believe that my knowledge has affected myself to always follow the core values. Rather, it was my experience – the experiences of not following the core values and realizing the undesirable consequences. From these experiences, I knew the importance of the core values and disciplined myself to base my actions on core values I had set in any situation. If I can keep and improve this self-discipline as I age, I will become a better person.
That is some very good advice your teacher gave you. Wow definitely gave me new insight on the definition of a good person
People are who they are because of their nature, but I think it is possible for someone to change. Whether good or bad, people can change. My little cousin, Benjamin, is only four, but he tends to be jealous of other children who succeed, so to be the best, he manipulates them. Recently, he began to twists people arms and legs, just to get what he wants. I believe he behaves that way because of his nature, but the choices he has made did not lead him to this. It is not his nature, it is how he was taught and how he grew up that led him to act how he acts. Children usually only copy people and mimic what they see. My cousin has grown into this sort of person and he can grow out of it; he is not destined to this nature.
Still learning and growing, I have been making many mistakes, but I have no excuse to because I should know better. I don’t know how people perceive me from my mistakes, but in my point of view, I’m a bad person. I hurt people when I shouldn’t, and I make the wrong decisions. Through my actions, I am a bad person; through my thoughts, I’m just in the middle. Sometimes, when I’m wrong, I think I’m right. I truly believe that what I say is right, but maybe that makes me selfish and inconsiderate of other people’s feelings. Growing up may be hard, but that is what helps us realize our priorities and the difference between wrong and right. With more knowledge and from our past mistakes, we’ll learn to make the right decisions.
My independence is what makes me special. It's what separates us from the rest. For me the emotions of happiness and sadness don't matter. I've been sad, I've been happy, and honestly I enjoy both of them. So to give up my own independence for those emotions is useless. Being who I want to be, and achieving my goals, bad or good that is what I am looking for. I also believe no person can give us eternal happiness except for maybe God, but other than that, no mortal being can give us happiness, it can't be traded or offered. Therefore to me I would take my independence. It's what makes me who I am today. Without it I won't be happy.
They both are evil the same. Even though many may say the planner is evil, the actual killer is too. If he goes along with the plan, no matter how hesitant he may have been, he is still guilty for his crimes. Even in the book, when the guy could not finish the job, he is still wrong for even thinking of the idea of doing it. That makes him the planner as well. So in sense they are equally wrong. Lets say a man decides to rob a bank. He gets a couple of guys, they do the job, and in the end they get caught. They are all doing the same amount of time. (depending on their previous crimes.) So to me the planner and killer are the same. No person is more evil then the next.
If someone offered me comfort and happiness in exchange for my independence I would NOT take it. For me my independence IS comfort and happiness. Not only does independence give me the ability to choose for myself and experience things on my own, it helps me learn from my own mistakes and makes me grow as a person. I can have comfort and happiness in my own independence. Although independence can cause some sort of personal stress it can also inspire and create better opportunities. Independence means everything to me, but I can be wrong about it because I haven’t fully experienced it. Either way, I would still choose to keep my independence than give it up for comfort and happiness because for me comfort and happiness, both lie in independence.
I believe our choices determine our nature BECAUSE of our conscience and soul. We can choose to be good or to be evil, but it is also possible that the “outside world” can influence us into changing who we really are inside. It is very possible for a person to change their “nature”. Certain situations can damage our peace in “nature” and influence us to become something we are not known for. A good person can become evil if a bad situation happens to them, then their conscience can change their “nature”. But an evil person can also change for the better and become a good person if they experience some sort of joy and “good”. People are always capable of changing whether it be good or bad. PEOPLE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE.
I believe that people can influence your "goodness". Every day we are influenced by other people, whether directly through peer pressure or subliminally through everyday life. If people are surrounded by "good" people who give up their own time for others, they too will be influenced to do the same.
However, if someone is surrounded by bad people they can be influenced for the worse. I believe that peer pressure is what is usually used to make people become bad and lose their goodness. This usually happens when people are young, when they haven’t found their identities.
The difference between the planer and the killer is all about the way it is executed. The killer is the more evil one ultimately. He is the disturbed soul that is able to take the life of another human. The planner can make all the plans that s/he can make but the plans will never go into effect without the executor. The planner is just a sick and twisted person.
People generally live based on their expirences.
I would definitely exchange independence for comfort and happiness. Being very honest here I consider myself as a VERY lazy person. I am not a risk taker and the way I do things is either not doing anything or trying my very best. This has something to relate with why I am late to turn in this blog. Tonight I will be going to Hong Kong myself and it is the first time. I always call Hong Kong my true home but for some reason this time I have an anxiety. I am totally not excited at all. It has been 2.5 years since my last trip to Hong Kong. Although my dad will be there with me, but he has to work and there will be 4 days that he has a business trip to Beijing that I can't join him. I am basically all by myself although I have relatives and friends in Hong Kong. This is the first time ever that I don't get to see my mom for so long. I am 17 now but there are less than 17 full days that I ever lived without my mom and this trip is exactly 17days long. I really don't know what will happen to me and I am really scared to a point that I feel so lost typing up this blog now.
The reason that I am really scared maybe because it is very hard to me to adapt in an environment. Maybe because of other reason, but the major reason is I am going to be 7248miles away from my mom for 17 days. I am also worried about my mom and I don't know how she will be doing in this 17days. I have also never be with my dad alone for so long and the last time this happen probably was when my mom was at the hospital for a week when I was about 4. Although I talk to my dad on phone everyday but he still seems to be like a stranger to me this time because we hardly me and mom only see him 3 times each year. I know he doesn't want to leave us but because he has to work in Hong Kong that's the only choice. I guess independence is depend on how much freedom we get. I seriously don't want to be independent this time. Maybe because I get treated as a baby whenever I am home. I would definitely give independence for happiness and comfort.
Everyone starts out the same like a blank piece of paper. With each event, we experience in life it shapes who we are and are morals. Personally, I believe that with the right influence from society one can lean towards one side more. If one person is around all the negative people eventually, he will become the same vice-versa. There is no ideal good and bad person; I believe that every person in the world has a small amount of good in them. The reason why some people are leaning towards the bad side is the influence of everything around them such as family, friends, and stress. I base my criteria on my experiences with some of my friends.
Usually when my friends lean towards a side on the good and bad scale I can see the obvious reasons why there are acting the way they are. They tell me that sometimes stress and family issues can cause them to have a burst of different emotions. Different experiences cause them to act differently such as leaning towards the bad side. I believe that people will learn to be better as they age because they will know the good and bad experiences. Wisdom comes with age the older the more experience a person has. I believe that experience and knowledge is what shapes a person to be on whichever end of the good and bad scale. As long as a person has a strong sense of their morals, they can be good no matter what situation they experience.
I believe the planner of killing someone has an evil heart. The actual killer is the person who has a cold heart. Thinking of doing something wrong to another person is bad, but trying to put it in action is just pure evil. The planner who sends someone else to do the kill would be a coward. McBeth’s wife sends home to do the killing because she does not want the stain of blood in her hands. It is even more evil that she sends her own husband to do the crime especially with the fact that her husband could possibly be executed. The killer would also be a coward because they do not have the guts to say no to the planner. McBeth cannot stand up for himself which is a good example of why he should not be crowned king.
I believe that we should listen to the people that care about our future, but we should analyze the influence that they give us before we take action. It is a good idea that McBeth should be a king especially with the courage that he demonstrated. He has to grow up and realize that it is not his rightful throne. Things cannot always go the way we want for our future. There are some doors that are not meant for us to open. McBeth metaphorically stole the king’s keys and opened the door that was not meant for him.
i agree with the planner being someone with an evil heart, because they are the one with evil plans. They make the plan with evil intentions.
Evil can only be labialized by ones intentions and actions. The combination of both weights the amount of evil one possesses. We are all in fact capable of doing evil but is it really our true intentions? Man was created evil, therefore we are evil, but it’s the amount of evil that makes us good. My point of view shows that although were all evil, we can still be good. Although Macbeth murders to become king, his conscience wasn’t completely his. Macbeth’s actions shouldn’t reflect his overall character, because everyone makes the wrong choices.
Macbeth was in fact tempted to kill because he wanted his personal satisfaction over his honor and integrity. Although, Lady Macbeth had premeditated Macbeth’s future killings he didn’t have evil intentions. Lady Macbeth is evil but her actions and intentions don’t make her the antichrist. The planner and the killer are both held equally evil in my perspective because they are both two halves to a whole. Lady Macbeth is more evil because Macbeth is only misleading by temptation and her purpose was true. Intentions and actions reflect people’s perspective of someone’s character. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth aren’t great people, nor can they be completely evil.
What good is it to be at the mountain top, if you didn't climb your way up there? Honestly, if I someone gave me the choice if just giving me happiness I wouldn't take it. I have personally always thought that happiness is something that has to and is better off earned, not given. Yes, earning it is time consuming, but a long with all that time consumed comes with all the memories that were made trying to achieve it. If it is given to you. If it is just given to me than I'd have none of those memories. That would make me feel unsatisfied. I'd rather feast as a hungry man than feast having never been hungry at all.
As we've discussed many times in our class what we all think is good and bad varies from person to person. Me personally, I think that I am a very down to earth guy and can befriend almost anybody, and the reason for this is because I have a very simple basis of what I think good and bad actually are. In general, a person is good to me as long as they don't hurt other people and other living things in any way or form, and people who destroy things for no reason. This is a vague description of what I think is good. I would type for hours if I were to go into all the little niches of what I think good is. But in general, I don't like to hurt people whether it be physically,mentally, by stealing, insulting, etc. And as I mentioned in my stand and deliver I don't like to destroy things, because even thats a way of hurting someone. Remember how even if I would have thrown those eggs at a car, some random person who I didn't even know would have the burden of cleaning it up, and to me that is a form of inflicting hurt.
As humans, everyone has a particular interests and pursuits, and we should all rightfully be entitled to them. As long as people interest don't inflict hurt towards other people than I think they are good. For instance, although many people look down upon a drug addict or a prostitute in society I honestly don't think these kinds people are bad people, they just have different interests and pursuits. As long as that drug addict isn't stealing money to pay for drugs or that prostitute isn't out killing people, then I cant say they are a bad person, just as long as they aren't hurting other people, besides they're families or friends who may be against what they are doing. I think the wort is when someone inflicts hurt upon someone we don't know.
It is part of human nature for us to naturally judge people, whether we do it consciously or unconsciously even I do it myself. Sometimes before I've even gotten to know somebody I'll unconsciously give them the good label or the bad label in my head. I know I may have my set of rules as to what good and bad is, but I also can't truly label people because I do believe in change. Change is possible but for someone to go from bad to good and vice versa can't just happen over night. The most drastic of changes take time. So for that matter I try to be free of judgment, but I know this doesn't always happens. My mind sometimes just isn't on the same page with my actions, but that's the case for many of us.
Good and evil are critical things. As someone said, Macbeth has many qualities that can be praised. However, when he chose to follow his wife's suggestion, he became a evil person. Is he loyal? Does he deserve the name of loyalty? In the story, and also reflect to our life,this loyalty became something that hid his evil face and help him easily kill his king. No matter how good he used to be, he didn't pass this test which is as big as SAT, and it determined his path of future. Therefore, i his evil action reflected his evilness deeply hide in his heart. I would call this bad soul, and evil subconsciousness.
Somebody will try to argue that Macbeth is not evil, but his wife. They believed that Macbeth was cheated by his wife. The people that is truly evil is his wife, and Macbeth was just a victims. I will argue that Macbeth is a hypocritical person, he hid his evilness in his subconsciousness. If we see the murder as a big fire, then to cause this fire, we need a small spark and the fuel(or other materials). His wife's evil word is spark. The fuel represents the evilness, and Macbeth has this evilness deeply in his heart. If Macbeth was good person inside his heart, he would try to stop and convince his wife. However, he didn't do that. His hesitate seems like showing his goodness in his heart, but actually, it critically shows his evilness(because if he is still a good person, he won't be hesitate about whether to kill his king or not.) Therefore, I believed that Macbeth was a evil guy at the very beginning, but he hid his evilness so deep in his subconsciousness that even he could not notice it.
In contrast, his wife looked much innocent. Certainly, she was not the victim of Macbeth, but the life. Her experience showed that she was badly hurt in her heart, and she may uesd to be a really good and nice person. In psychology, the people who got hurt would always try to hurt people around them. She tried to convince her husband to di something evil, but her prupose, in psychologic perspective, was unconsciously to heal her mental illness.(of course, this is useless) Her wife was not evil, but badly hurt.
I would not exchange my independence with comfort and happiness that someone offered because with no independence, I do not think that I would feel happy or comfortable. I find happiness and comfort when I am in control of making decisions and shaping my life. Although I do not always know the best solutions for every problem I face and sometimes even end up getting myself into more troubles, I appreciate my freedom to choose my own path as I learn from my past mistakes. While I answered this blog, I reminded of the daughter of a famous company's CEO who committed suicide several years ago. Despite all of her wealth and success, her personal life began to suffer as her plan to marry her boyfriend was opposed by her parents, which eventually led her to hang herself. I believe if she had a chance to exchange comfort and happiness provided by her parents to her independence, she would have definitely taken it.
When people interact with each other, they influence each other as well. Sometimes they can influence others' goodness for better but also for worse. For instance, when I was in fifth grade, I hung out with people who never really did their homework and rebelled against their parents. While I hung out with them, I barely did my homework and did not listen to my parents, just like them. At that time, I thought there was nothing wrong with having fun with my friends everyday and living my life the way I wanted. However, when I met new friends who were very concerned about their grades and passionate about their dreams after I entered middle school, I started to care about my grades and set my goals for the first time as I realized my mistakes. From that experience, I perceived my goodness could be affected by the people around me, especially my friends, since I have spent a lot of time with them and built consensus. They could help you develop morality but also degrade and reduce your moral standards to worse.
We can hardly blame Duncan for his own death, for Macbeth for the most part showed only his good qualities when near the king. I would say that good or bad is determined more from thoughts than from actions, and that “tolerable” would mean good actions regardless of thought. After all, while Macbeth might have had thoughts of becoming king before he actually does, he never tried to claim the position before receiving outside influence: had he done nothing, he would have hurt no one. I personally would say that I am neutral (but leaning closer to “good”) since I can relate to Macbeth: there are some people whom I clearly dislike and have negative feelings toward but I have not done anything to get back at them and thus I am “good” by my definition. I hope to become better as I age – I have both degraded and improved with age, although I cannot discern where and when each happened. Others can definitely affect one`s alignment: my cousin in particular has had profound effects on me – both good and bad – and, due to the fact that I got both kinds of influences from the same person I can also conclude that people are rarely, if ever, purely good or bad.
During my earliest years, but after seeing my older cousin yell at his elders on multiple occasions I noticeably picked up that habit for a good few years of my early childhood, much to the dismay of said elders. In addition, the fact that I seemed to be the only one to be regularly scolded for my rudeness caused me to become a stereotypical “bad kid” – not quite what I am now, if I say so myself. A good influence that my cousin had on me, however, is that he taught me to work harder on the things that I do. I used to treat most things as a game, not unlike Siddhartha, because I was too afraid to take them seriously. After seeing how seriously he took certain things, I decided to give hard work a try and eventually became a better kid. Those are two noticeable influences that my cousin had on me; they`re not the only ones, good or bad. How much someone can influence another depends on multiple factors, including the influencer`s persistence and the influenced`s resilience. My cousin never tried to influence me either way, and yet I, the kid who simply wanted to try new things, changed because of him. Macbeth only gives in because of his wife`s insistence and his supposed inability to fail; good or bad depends on countless factors, but outside influence certainly has a large part.
If someone offered me comfort and happiness in exchange for my independence, I wouldn’t take it. Being independent has always been a word I've used to describe myself. Since I was younger, I’ve always tried to find ways to do things myself, and not rely on others; I find it to be disappointing. Without independence, I don’t think someone can have freedom. I have been looking forward to growing up and being on my own, and making my own decisions, I feel that when I do something from my own will or my own decision making, it is more valuable to me, and means more.
I think we can measure a persons evil, based of their intent. So I consider the planner to be more evil that the killer. When someone does something on purpose to be mean and to hurt another, that is evil, but if someone does something with good intentions then you can’t blame that person for trying. I believe our choices do determine our nature. People choose right from wrong, and the people who chose based on what they feel is right are generally good people, who are just capable of doing bad things.
I believe that people can influence your goodness to a certain extent. When you are younger and your parents teach you right from wrong, you are absorbing all of that and building your morals around theirs. As you get older, your parent’s teachings have less effect on you than they did when you were younger. At the age that I'm at now, I already am the person I’m meant to be, I can still learn and grow, but I have already built my foundation, and no one can change that.
I think everyone tends to obtain what is the most appropriate to them. In other words, everyone is instinctively selfish to their own advantage. Even babies can know how to ask for foods without anyone’s taught. People are choosing the best choice for them, and, at the same time, they might become selfish to other parts. For an instance, parents can sacrifice their lives to their children from dangers. In their sights, children are the most important part in their lives, so they are willing to select the most proper choice. However, they are selfish to other people who care about them like their children. (For an example, the parents might feel guilty if they did not sacrifice their lives; nonetheless, their children might feel depressed about parents’ death.) After all, their behaviors are not out of morality, but they are great and sacrificial to their children.
Even though we are selfish naturally, people still have rules in their sights instinctively. Unlike the parents, the most important part in his life is not friendship, morality, or love, but reputation and power. For getting reputation, he can fight against his country’s enemy all out without considering his own safety, and his family’s concern. Later, position became his primary desire. He prefers to hurt his best friend, and the king who trust him in order to get what he is eager to have. Though he is always brave to angle for what he aspires, he always feel guilty about his actions. Sadly, he can not do anything to go over his guilty. Overall, we can be selfish, but we can not be selfish purposely or viciously.
The planner is more evil than the killer. The person that commit’s the crime is many times committing the crime for a prize such as money. The planner is the person that plans the crime and chooses who is killed. The planner sets the crime in motion, without the planner there can be no crime. In this perspective, Lady Macbeth is more evil than Macbeth. Lady Macbeth sets the crime in motion. People are good or bad based on their actions. People become bad when their actions have been bad. One can think of committing a crime but unless the crime is committed no one is at fault. Duncan can partially be blamed. Duncan placed himself so closely to a man that was not that far off from the throne giving the person he trusted a motive to kill him.
Our choices determine our nature and who we are. It is possible for someone’s nature to change. If a bad person commits good actions for a time then that person becomes a better person. If a good person starts to show actions of a bad person then that person becomes a worse person. I would and many others would say I am a good person. I always stick strongly to my principles and I avoid what I feel is wrong. Many times people around me go against their own principles and do things that would not make them good people. Even when others around me are doing something bad I stick to my principles and make myself stand out.
Only users who are logged in may leave comments on this blog. Please follow the link below in order to log in.
Click here to log in