A Comparison between the Devil and Tom Walker, and Macbeth Essays

A Comparison between the Devil and Tom Walker, and Macbeth Essays A Comparison between the Devil and Tom Walker, and Macbeth Paper A Comparison between the Devil and Tom Walker, and Macbeth Paper Comparison Essay As the reader or audience members read the book, â€Å"The Devil Tom Walker† and the play Macbeth , you tend to visualize the comparison between the two authors. The most common theme used by both Shakespeare and Irving is greed. In which Greed is the intense and selfish desire for something, such as wealth, food, power or excessively or inordinate desire for wealth, and profit. Throughout the book â€Å"The Devil Tom Walker† and in the play Macbeth you can see the theme of greed in which was the themes that both Irving and Shakespeare betrayed in their text. An example or display of greed was shown in the play Macbeth, William Shakespeare introduced the reader to this in act four, â€Å"And my more having would be as a sauce to make me hunger more: that I should forge Quarrels unjust against the good and loyal, destroying them for wealth†(Shakespeare 158). This piece of textual evidence from the play Macbeth was used to emphasize the theme of greed in the play, by basically stating that greed feeds on itself while in the process of achieving a certain desire. Malcolm is stating that he would become evil, and destroy the good and loyal to achieve success or wealth in life. Irving just like Shakespeare also used greed as a theme in his book entitled â€Å"The Devil Tom Walker. † Washington Irving presented the audience with the greedy character named Tom Walker, who showed signs of greed. The novel author states, â€Å"he had also a great folio bible on his counting house desk, and would frequently be found reading it when people came on business;occasions he would lay his green spectacles on the book, to mark the place, while he turned round to drive some usurious bargain† (Washington 5). Tom was a very greedy individual because he would read a bible and then in the process he would lay his green glasses down on the bible, so he could make a deal with a client. Tom Walker would close deals with the bible in his coat pocket. Also the green glasses used by Irving Washington symbolize the proper definition of the word greed, because green resembles money. He is trying to read the bible to find a loop hole in it so he can make a good bargain and that would allow him to make money, Tom would do just about anything to have the wealth of money. Even if that meant that he would have to be more evil or greedier than the Old Scratch. The theme greedy was very important to both authors Irving and Shakespeare, because it was used as a type of moral or theme throughout both the play and novel to portray the essential signs of greediness. As both authors demonstrate this, they also show how greed is an ongoing process that can’t be stopped, because it’s an uncontrollable desire for a particular want or need in life. In fact both authors defined the word greed very well in their pieces of work, by describing greed as a desire or want that an individual would forfeit all the good things in his or her life to commit to evil doings which in a sense is the process of being greedy.

How to Use a Relative Clause

How to Use a Relative Clause Relative clauses are also referred to as adjective clauses. They are used to modify a noun, which is either the subject or the object of a sentence. For example: She is the woman who he met at the party last week. I bought a book which was published in Germany last year. Who he met at the party is a relative clause that describes the subject of the sentence, which is woman. Which was published in Germany describes the object of the verb bought. Intermediates: That is the school. I went to that school as a boy. That is the school (that) I went to as a boy. Thats a beautiful car over there! Id like to buy that car. Id like to buy that beautiful car over there. How to Use Relative Clauses? Use relative clauses to provide extra information. This information can either define something (defining clause) or provide unnecessary but interesting added information (non-defining clause). Relative clauses can be introduced by: A relative pronoun: who (whom), which, that, whoseNo relative pronounWhere, why, and when instead of a relative pronoun You need to consider the following when deciding which relative pronoun to use: Is the subject or object or possessive of a relative clause?Does it refer to a person or an object?Is the relative clause a defining or non-defining relative clause? Relative clauses are often used in both spoken and written English. There is a tendency to use non-defining relative clauses mostly in written, rather than in spoken, English. The Importance of Defining Relative Clauses The information provided in a defining relative clause is crucial in understanding the meaning of the sentence. Examples:   The woman who lives in apartment number 34 has been arrested.The document that I need has important written at the top. The purpose of a defining relative clause is to clearly define who or what we are talking about. Without this information, it would be difficult to know who or what is meant. Example:  The house is being renovated. In this  case, it is not necessarily clear  which  house is being renovated. Non-Defining Relative Clauses Non-defining relative clauses provide interesting additional information which is not essential to understanding the meaning of the sentence. Example:  Mrs. Jackson, who is very intelligent, lives on the corner. Correct punctuation is essential in non-defining relative clauses. If the non-defining relative clause occurs in the middle of a sentence, a comma is put before the relative pronoun and at the end of the clause. If the non-defining relative clause occurs at the end of a sentence, a comma is put before the relative pronoun. In defining relative clauses, there are no commas. Examples:   Children who play with fire are in great danger of harm.The man who bought all the books by Hemingway has died. Generally,  who  and  which  are more usual in written English, whereas  that  is more usual in speech when referring to things. Relative Pronouns and Defining Relative Clauses Examples:   Thats the boy (who, whom) I invited to the party.Theres the house (that, which) Id like to buy. Relative Pronouns Used as a Possessive Examples:   Hes the man whose car was stolen last week.They were sure to visit the town whose location was little-known. It is preferable to use  that  (not  which) after the following words: all, any(thing), every(thing), few, little, many, much, no(thing), none, some(thing), and after superlatives. When using the  pronoun  to refer to the object,  that  can be omitted. Examples:   It was everything (that) he had ever wanted.There were only a few (that) really interested him. Examples:   Frank Zappa, who was one of the most creative artists in rock n roll, came from California.Olympia, whose name is taken from the Greek language, is the capital of Washington State. Relative Pronouns and Non-Defining Relative Clauses Examples:   Frank invited Janet, who (whom) he had met in Japan, to the party.Peter brought his favorite antique book, which he had found at a flea market, to show his friends. That can never be used in non-defining clauses. Possessive in Non-Defining Relative Clauses Example:   The singer, whose most recent recording has had much success, was signing autographs.The artist, whose name he could not remember, was one of the best he had ever seen. In non-defining relative clauses,  which  can be used to refer to an entire clause. Example:   He came for the weekend wearing only some shorts and a t-shirt, which was a stupid thing to do. After numbers and words like  many, most, neither, and some, we use  of,  before,  whom,  and  which  in non-defining relative clauses.   Example:   Many of those people, most of whom enjoyed their experience, spent at least a year abroad.  Dozens of people had been invited, most of whom I knew.

Revenue Strategy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Revenue Strategy - Essay Example With its Corporate head quarters in Bentonville Arkansas, Wal-Mart operates 99 distribution centers and transport offices in USA to service the operations of its 5,246 Wal-Mart stores out of which 1,587 are located internationally. Over 138 million customers per week are catered to by Wal-Mart stores across the world. 82% of American households have made at least one purchase at Wal-Mart during an annum. Such sustained performance over the years have been driven by a series of well crafted business strategies, which are targeted at generating revenue and profitability through the Wal-Mart operations as well as providing the company with significant competitive advantage over its rivals. At the heart of Wal-Mart’s revenue generation strategy lies the focus on attracting new customers and retaining existing ones by offering value that is unparrelel to what its competitiors are offering. Its marketing campaigns are firmly hinged on the slogan, â€Å"everyday low prices† where the company offers certain products at 25-30% less than the normal market prices. With its massive operation volumes the company enjoys economies of scales, that are translated in to low prices, which in turn is used as the main revenue generation tool. The company also pressurize its supply chain in to cutting costs and improving their own productivity so that low prices can be secured at supply cha in level, and passed on to customers while maintaining Wal-Mart’s profitability. The company has utilized many channels to reach different customer segments by differentiating its stores formats and product range to suit locations and different communities. Wal-Mart stores fall in to 5 categories as Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Wal-Mart Super centers, Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market, Sams Club and Wal-Mart International. The company also operates Wal-Mart Online Store to capitalize from the increasing popularity of Internet

Sociology american family life now vs family life in 1950s Essay

Sociology american family life now vs family life in 1950s - Essay Example In the process of going through the comparison analysis, an overview with regards to the prevailing social norms on family and family roles, gender roles, and family function will be provided. Based on the gathered information with regards to the factors that contributes to the breakdown of the American family structure, some of the highly recommended solutions will be provided to address the sociological problem in the United States. Family is one of the three major institutions of the society aside from work and welfare. (Hughes and Fergusson, 2004: 2) In line with this, a family is considered as the basic unit of a society. For this reason, it is important for each individual to fully understand how the modern family structure is functioning. Since a family is composed of a group of people with a common intimate and complex connection with one another, family members are normally involved in activities and social practices like socializing the young, regulating procreation and sexual activity, and the provision of physical, psychological and emotional support to family members. However, there are quite a lot of factors that triggered the significant changes in the function of a modern family particularly in terms of gender and family roles. Over the years, the strong family ties of the modern American family are slowly being broken down. Changes in the social norms on family structure and family roles, gender roles, and family function are being affected by the challenges most Americans are facing with regards to political and socio-economic changes. In line with this, the weakening of the family structure most Americans are experiencing right now is causing serious sociological problem. Influenced by several sociologists including Talcott Parsons, Wilbert Moore, Kingsley Davis, and Emile Burkheim among others (Farley, 2000: 72), the functionalist theory of sociology consider the norm of a family as one that is composed

Social capital Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 1

Social capital - Essay Example Putnam, Leonardi and Nanetti in 1993 in their Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, defined the term â€Å"social capital† as â€Å"features of social organisation, such as trust, norms [or reciprocity], and networks [of civil engagement], that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions† (Hobbs 2000). The World Bank defined it as â€Å"the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions† (Hobbs 2000). However despite the differences in perspectives, all believe that social networks are the most valuable assets for the society â€Å"just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective)† (Putnam 2000, p. 19), in the same way forming social contacts are excellent for increasing the productivity of the individuals and even groups (Putnam 2000, p. 19). ... 2). In many of the western democracies of today, we can see the concept of community and social networks at all the civil, political as well as economical levels growing, giving an ample proof of the increase in social relations as the most important cause for maintaining sustainable communities in all the social, economic and democratic spheres of the society. These kinds of social relationships are said to be loaded with the social capital including all the norms or means of production that allow the people to join in the mutual agreement or work in a collective way. There are different traits of social capital like social norms, social network and trust (Productivity Commission 2003, p. x). Social norms are informal rules that formulate the behavior of the people in varying circumstances like showing tolerance and respect towards others etc as well as â€Å"reciprocity† like behavior with others in the way you expect others should behave with you. Similarly social network i s an interconnection between the different groups of people having common characteristics and traits for e.g. family or a religious group. The third one is trust which is simply the way to develop confidence with the people whom you are in contact. Trust is a main thrust of all the relationships and is the most important component for the well being and overall development of the human beings (Productivity Commission 2003, p. xi). Studies conducted on the sociology of economic development in the developing nations as well as around the â€Å"network capitalism† in East Asia have also diverted attention towards the importance of the social networks. In fact even in the Western economies, researchers have found out highly flexible form of â€Å"network

Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Political Theory Analysis

Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Political Theory Analysis Courtney Deed How did St Thomas Aquinas justify the coercive authority of the state? How did he justify war? Are his justifications of state authority and war compatible? Are they convincing? Why/ Why not? This essay will critically examine Saint Thomas Aquinas’ political theory on the coercive authority of the state and his justification of war. Authority and power have been utilized as a form of social control to regulate the masses. It ensures the common good for people so that they can live amicably, as much as possible, with one and another (Finnis, 1998). Without some form of social control, there would be questionably, no state. Political authority is not only necessary for social control, but is also necessary to bring all to virtue (Weithman, 1992). Definition of Terms In the interests of transparency, key terms in this essay include; the state, authority, legitimacy, law and war. Morris (2011) describes the state to be â€Å"the principal political entity or form of political organization†. Narveson (2008) concurs with this assessment of state, only adding that it is a considerable number of people, in the same area, bound by the same government. In Summa Theologica, Aquinas defines law as â€Å"a rule or measure of action in virtue of which one is led to perform certain actions† (ST in Coleman). In essence, laws are rules fashioned by the legislature for the benefit, safety and uniformity of civilians. Authority is power of people, of any kind to rule (Narveson, 2008). From this, coercive authority is when power is enforced through suppression of right and the use of fear and distress. It is a common tool in tyrannical or dictatorial government systems. Legitimacy is the compliance and acceptance of rules and laws by society (Vinaya gamoorth, 2013). If civilians do not accept direction by the rule maker, their authority is not legitimate. Finally, war is organised conflict between two groups of people (Smith, 2012) How did he justify the coercive nature of the state? Power and law making are inextricably linked. The legislator creates laws and as these are enforced, power over the state is defined. Coercive nature stems from the forcible decisions on law that a ruler makes. Aquinas proposes an explanation for this, it is an â€Å"ordinance of reason for the common good of a [complete] community, promulgated by the person or body responsible for looking after that community† (Summa Theologica in Finnis, 1998). Aquinas comments in Summa Theologica that the masses have to assent to be ruled and then by â€Å"practical proposition† law is made by those who are responsible for ruling (Finnis, 1998). From this it is clear that as long as civilians accept the rule then any law that is made is legitimate. Aquinas observes that â€Å"every set of laws is addressed by two kinds of people: the obstinate and the proud who are restrained and disciplined by law and the good who are assisted by the law’s guidance to fulfil their good inten tions† (ST) If an authoritative decision is made to solve a problem, then it will be accepted by the masses. Finnis (1998) reinforces this, stating â€Å"the authoritative decision, whether legislative, executive or judicial †¦ will not result in co-ordination unless it is accepted as settling the question, and accepted even by those who would have preferred a different decision, a different law†. This has a run- on effect to decisions that are made coercively. By definition, if society assent to the power of legislators, then even autocratic decisions are justified and accepted. A local example of this, the Clyde River Dam Saga in New Zealand in the 1960’s under the prime ministership of Robert Muldoon. Aquinas identifies two types of ruling; ordered for governing and for the sake of domination. Ordered for governing is where it is for the good of those who are being ruled. This would be the King, who for the common good makes decisions to help and benefit his subjects. The King is free from coercive restraint, as he can alter it himself. Aquinas comments that he is, however, subject to the laws of God (Dunbabin, 1988). The second, is for the good of the ruler. Aquinas likens this as a master over his slaves (Weithman 1992). Aquinas believes that law, and by explanation the coercive nature of the state is forced onto the community, â€Å"citizens don’t have [a] choice about it- it isn’t a piece of advice, it’s an order!† (Narveson, 2008). These orders, have to be rational and more importantly legitimate, â€Å"an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated and enforced by the one who is in charge of the community† (Summa Theologica). So, a s citizens, we accept valid ruling for our benefit and for the benefit of the community. It is trust, that the ruler is making the Aquinas is fixated on the notion of the common good. On surface level, this could be likened to peace, success and contentment. Aquinas looks at the best for the most people rather than the best option. Aquinas argued the common good is a reasonable and rational objective for all people. It is from this point that he founded his belief that civilians can disobey laws, as long as disgrace would not result should they choose not to follow (Dunbabin 1988). However, when considering Aquinas’ views on the execution of heretics, it questions whether the common good is only about harmony but rather what the Roman Catholic faith would like to see. In Summa Theologica, Aquinas directly addresses this issue, asserting if heretics cannot be made to see reason by priests, they can be executed. Aquinas justifies the nature of power and the co-ordination of society by using the law. This does not have to coercive – it is just power. However, by way of authority and legitimate rule, this power can be coercive. How did he justify war? Aquinas has a firm view on war, but more importantly, how war is imposed. He believed the act itself, of war, to be â€Å"a sin in itself† (Summa Theologica) However, rather than the act, Aquinas is concerned with the decision to start the war. This stems from the Romanic notion of ‘just cause’ for war. Just cause is a moral criterion to justify the invasion or aggression against another country. It weighs up, on the balance of facts, if it is permissible for one country to wage war on another. In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas outlines the three prerequisites for a just war. Firstly, the authority of the sovereign must be legitimate. It is not for the private individual to wage war, but rather the ruler maker, or sovereign. The private individual â€Å"can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior† and in war time, it is not for ordinary people to make such decisions. The sovereign must â€Å"summon together the people, which has to be done in war time† (Summa Theologica). If the sovereign cannot bring together the masses, his authority cannot be legitimate. The ultimate test for legitimacy is whether a ruler will be followed. The second, just cause is required. The decision to go to war has to be made by the Sovereign or public authority as â€Å"no private person has the right to initiate war† (Summa Theologica in Finnis 1998) Aquinas explains this to be â€Å"those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault† (Summa Theologica). Aquinas believes that, just cause allows for and to defend the common good. This may mean avenging and punishing adversaries for sins committed by or against the enemy state. Finnis (1998) describes this could be being attacked by reason of their guilt in respect of some wrong which they refuse or fail to rectify. Persecution or self-defence is an example of this. It should be noted, that Aquinas does not belief that war a nd be waged to impose religion, even if those fighting it believe it to be the true religion. The third requirement of a just war is the combatants have the right intention to engage in war. In Summa Theologica, Aquinas says that this includes â€Å"[the] right intention so that they intend the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil†. The right intention must be held above all else. There can be no ulterior motive or secret agenda when faced with the question of war. War must be used as a means to quell a situation and for absolutely no reason, should war be used as punishment or for any ferocious means. Once all requirements of war are satisfied, Aquinas then looks to the legitimacy of the ruler. It is them, who make the decision. Aquinas believes that it is only the public official who can legitimately start combative and engage the public in war (Mooney, 2007). A ruler who lacks legitimacy is a tyrant. Aquinas, ever early on makes the clear distinction between what he calls the private and the public citizen. The private, an ordinary person, who subjects their will to the state and dutifully obliges to the rule of the sovereign, conditional on the legality of the situation. The public official â€Å"charged with public authority, directing men by law to the common good, are unifying and co-ordinating functionaries, representatives of the corporate will of the community† (Coleman, 2000). From this it is inferred that by doing their job, as well as being part of the group, they are bringing society towards the common good. It can be likened with the idea of utility, the best option for the most amount of people. It should be now mentioned, that a solider, conscripted or not, is innocent of any killing or war crimes should he be ordered to do it from a higher authority (Miller, 2002) Therefore, Aquinas condones and justifies warfare should the decision be made by the correct person. For war to be justified, a public authority has to make the decision; bearing in mind just cause and have the right intention to go to war. Right intention may include avenging what has been lost or for the common good of the populace (Miller, 2002) Are his justifications for war/ state authority compatible? Why? Why not? By virtue of one, the other follows. Through the power if the state, governed by legitimately made laws, the public official can wage war. As previous discussed, â€Å"the power of the sword, as the state understands it, is essentially the public authority of the state’s rulers and their judicial and military officers, to execute criminals and to wage war† (Finnis). Public officials, have the ultimate say in decisions. The head of state effectively can choose whether or not a country goes to war or not. To determine whether or not a decision is coercive or not it is defined by the legitimacy of the ruler. Aquinas commented in De Malo that â€Å"[people] may not have a freedom of action but they do have a freedom of choice†. This can be related to modern system of governance and ruling. In New Zealand, we follow a representative system of representation. Through the choice of enrolled adults, we elect members of parliament to best represent our interests. Although we may not agree with every decision that they may make, however for the best interests of the government, they stay in power. The best way to show how Aquinas’ justifications of war and coercive authority link is the example of self-defence. It is here Aquinas introduces the principle of double effect. Unlike the traditional approach; ‘an eye for an eye’ or using force with force, Aquinas differentiates between the intention that the person has and the repercussions that the act had. In its most basic sense, the Doctrine allows for reverence of all people (Finnis 278) Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defence? Principle of double effect, permits killing where it is the foreseen but unintended side-effect of doing good, where the bad does not lead to the good, and where the good outweighs the bad This is similar to Aquinas’ views on capital punishment. For the common good and betterment for the community, Aquinas condones capital punishment of extreme ‘sinners’ or evildoers. This is due to the belief that they are more likely to hurt others than to amend their behaviour (Miller, 2002). Aquinas general idea regarding capital punishment is to deter the potential criminal from offending and to uphold the common good in the community. This could be likened to the Christian thought that one must love and his neighbour above all else. By taking the choice away from civilians (‘private individuals’), they are left to continue following Jesus’ commandment. It is the ruler’s authority, which can make such decisions; to wage war, introduction sanctions or to consent to capital punishment. First, Thomas classifies an act as intrinsically good, bad, or indifferent (Miller, 2002) Old Wine in New Skins: Aquinas, Just War and Terrorism Mooney, T Brian Pacifica : Journal of the Melbourne College of Divinity; Jun 2007; 20, 2; ProQuest Central pg. 204 Aquinas and the Presumption against Killing and War Richard B. Miller The Journal of Religion, Vol. 82, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 173-204 Published by:The University of Chicago Press Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1206289 Vinayagamoorthy, K. (2013). Contextualizing legitimacy.Texas International Law Journal,48(3), 535-574. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1398477293?accountid=17287 Ron Smiths Text book : Morality of War

Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales: Exploring Injustice in the Knights Tale E

In "The Ending of 'Troilus,'" E. Talbot Donaldson writes in response to the conclusion of the "Knight’s Tale," one of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, "What it does suggest†¦is that Providence is not working justly." Though Donaldson correctly points out the fact that the "Knight’s Tale" ends in injustice, he confuses the role of sin in the injustice with the role of God. He asserts that God is to blame for the injustice in the "Knight's Tale" rather than exploring the role of human sinfulness. The Knight, an honorable, generous, courteous, and noble member of a party of twenty-nine people on a pilgrimage to the English town of Canterbury during the Middle Ages, tells his tale as part of a storytelling contest the pilgrims’ host holds. The "Knight’s Tale" takes place in Ancient Greece and relates the story of Arcite and Palamon, two cousins who risk their lives to win the love of Emily, Duke Theseus' beautiful sister-in-law. Originally, Arcite and Palamon come from Thebes, a rival of Athens, but Theseus captures and imprisons them during a war. During their incarceration, the cousins notice Emily. Her beauty causes pain in their hearts, as their detention prevents them from roaming about and getting to know fair Emily. Arcite explains, "The freshness of her beauty strikes me dead" (Coghill 49). The cousins’ obsession with Emily’s beauty, which they incorrectly describe as love, leads the two to go to battle against one another to determine which of them will gain the privilege of marrying this woman who "fairer was of mien/Than is the lily on its stalk of green" (Coghill 47). Though Arcite wins the battle, his horse gets spooked and he falls off and dies, thus transferring the right to marry Emily to Palamon, who lives happily ever... ...y situation that will ever occur. Humans cannot know God’s reasons for the way things turn out. People must trust Him to do what’s right. Donaldson’s entire argument revolves around the false expectation that, since God loves the world, nothing bad should happen and He should always deal out justice. Though Donaldson correctly realizes that prayers are not always answered and justice is not always carried forth, he blames the conclusion on God, rather than where it is actually due – on sin in the world. Works Cited Bible (King James Version). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B Eerdman's Publishing Co., 2003. Coghill, Nevill. Introduction. The Canterbury Tales. By Geoffrey Chaucer. Trans. Coghill. London: Penguin, 2000. Donaldson, E. Talbot, â€Å"The Ending of ‘Troilus’,† Chaucer’s Troilus: Essays in Criticism ed. Stephen A. Barney Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1980