The Element of Style Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The Element of Style - Essay Example Kalman seems to be an expert on body language since these illustrations clearly have meanings and stories attached to them. If a picture can tell a thousand words, then Kalman’s paintings certainly qualify to prove this adage. One may well connect each painting to the word it is used to illustrate. For instance, the word ‘should’ may also be used in the sense of a moral imperative, as for example what should be done in such and such a situation. Should imposes this moral duty, (as â€Å"one should be kind to the poor†); Could means that it’s the person’s choice whether to act or not; (†he could have reacted sooner and saved the child’s life); and Would indicates that it is highly probable that the person will act in such a manner (â€Å"he wouldn’t be such a spoilsport now, would he?†). ‘Would’ is illustrated by Kalman as a man who is relaxed but looking at us keenly and ready to move into action. His bo dy language states that he is ready to get up. But the very fact that he is seated on a chair and near a bed gives one the idea that if he is not motivated to take action, he just might decide to get off his chair and move to relax and lit down on the bed nearby. Something might motivate him to take action, and then again, it might not. The choice is entirely up to him, it would appear so. On the other hand, ‘Should’ is illustrated by the painting of a quaint maiden who sits with her hands folded at her chest in a sitting position. She looks at us out of the corner of her eyes- a sideways glance (Strunk, White & Kalman, 2007, 36). This may refer to the old archaic origins of the word and its usage. She is dressed in red. For some reason, it indicates to me that she should get married as she seems to be a spinster. Although the woman is the focus of the picture, we cannot help noticing the painting of flowers or leaves behind her. The third illustration or

Microeconomics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 2

Microeconomics - Essay Example The price of a one carrot diamond is $10,000, while the price of 100 gallons of tap water is $0.50 (Textbook, 2007). The diamond – water paradox proves that the utility of a resource does not necessarily affect its price. The economical explanation of the diamond – water paradox is based on the law of demand and supply. The application of this law implies the reason the prices of diamonds are so high is based on the short supply of diamonds across the world (Varian, 2003). The prices of purified water sold in 20 ounce bottle units follow to certain extend same logic as the diamond – tap water paradox. Bottle water’s price is much higher than the water that comes into people’s home through its pluming system. To put the price in perspective with 100 gallons of water a company could prepare 640 twenty once bottles of water which retails at $1 a piece implying the market value of purified bottle water is 1040 times than the value of tap water. The quality of the product, its positive health benefit, its good refreshing taste and the formula that provides drinkable water at its optimum state of quality it can be to be consumed by humans. The marginal utility of bottle water is very suspect in comparison to tap water. The water in bottles has a market value which makes it an item that can only be used to be drank by a person, on the other hand tap water can used consumed orally by humans as well as a variety of other uses such as fro c leaning, to run machinery as a cooling agent, and many other uses. Tap water is way cheaper and has more used than bottle water. Water is a valuable liquid that is generally available at very low prices for most of the world’s population. In the continent of Africa in general water is not readily available for many villages across the African nation. The utility and value of water for a community is tremendous. If water is in a state of scarcity in a region the social political system is destroyed and a chaotic

William Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet Essay Example for Free

William Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet Essay Discuss the ideas developed by the author involving the riskiness of youth and the caution of age? In William Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare fully develops the idea of riskiness of age. The books main characters Romeo and Juliet, are constantly taking very dangerous risks, these instances highlight the two lovers tender ages. Throughout the book many young people are killed or harmed under the backdrop of immaturity and the lack of wisdom in youth. The books wiser characters such as the Nurse and Friar Lawrence also take risks but unlike the younger characters plan wisely and are cautious. The inexperience and lack of wisdom in early adolescent years causes adolescents to feel invincible which causes them to take unwise and foolish choices, however as one grows one feels more and more vulnerable and through life becomes wiser leading to sensible choices. William Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet is a tragic love story that leaves one moved and gives one much to ponder. Shakespeares protagonist characters Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet are from to very influential families which are engaged in a blood thirsty feud. When Romeo and Juliet first meet, very swiftly, they instantly fall head over heels in love without thought. When Juliet discovers Romeo is a Montague she at first expresses grief to the fact that he is her archenemies lonesome son but then through her tenderness of age decides to ignore their social barriers. Through out the book the two conduct many acts which are very risky and dangerous highlighting there tender age and maturity. The greatest act of riskiness I thought was there marriage without consent from their parents, eventually this act cost them a great deal. Romeo and Juliet are portrayed as two foolish and abrupt adolescents who not as wise in there acts as they should be. Throughout the book Romeo and Juliets love combined with the family feud cause the loss of many young lives. Through the play we observe the deaths of Mercutio, Tybalt, Paris, Lady Montague, and the most substantial Romeo and Juliet. These deaths can be viewed as a direct cause of the foolishness of youth, though some may view these deaths also as a result of the family feud but the family feud seemed to ignite as a result of Romeo and Juliets love for each other. In Romeo and Juliet there are many instances where suicidal topics are discussed and even carried out which also highlights the unwise nature of adolescence for the reason that Romeo and Juliet are ready to die for each other instantly and see no possibility of life without each other. All deaths are caused by one another in the way that Tybalt killing Mercutio outrages Romeo into killing Tybalt of which a result he is exiled from Verona and from this his mother dies. Juliets appearance of death causes Paris to come to Juliets death place where Romeo also goes to, at this confrontation Paris is killed and Romeo commits suicide and when Juliet wakes up to discover the deaths she also commits suicide. Shakespeare weaves a poignant and tragic story and doing so highlights the foolishness of adolescence. Shakespeare shows us the wisdom of mature figures by means of the Friar Lawrence and the Nurse. Throughout Romeo and Juliet the Nurse and Friar Lawrence are portrayed as the authoritative figures over Romeo and Juliet. The Nurse and Friar Lawrence also take many risks but they are much wiser in planning and thinking about what they are getting into, something that is different from the acts of Romeo and Juliet. Though what the Nurse and Friar Lawrence do seems foolish they seem to discuss the topics positives and negatives also observing the affect of their act which highlights there maturity. Overall Shakespeare did a exemplary job in highlighting the riskiness of youth and caution of age. The unwise nature of adolescence is observable even in todays world though adolescents may not have as many rights as they did in the past they still are led to believe they are invincible and in there doing so make many unwise choices and judgments. The inexperience and lack of wisdom in early adolescent years causes adolescents to feel invincible which causes them to take unwise and foolish choices, however as one grows one feels more and more vulnerable and through life becomes wiser leading to sensible choices. Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet is acclaimed even today as a demanding piece of literature and drama. Shakespeare is commendable for writing perhaps times most poignant and tragic story.

What Is The Right Thing To Do?

What Is The Right Thing To Do? If someone, in an attempt to exercise his right of self defense coerces anyone else into defending him then that would mean that the defender himself is a criminal invader of the rights of someone else. So, if X is aggressing against Y, Y may not use force to compel Z to join in defending him, for then, Y would be just as much a criminal aggressor against Z. This immediately rules out conscription for defense, for conscription enslaves a man and forces him to fight on someone elses behalf. Is it always wrong to lie? Consider the case whereby A sets out to murder B and although C knows where B is but C lies to A in order to save Bs life. Under such circumstances would we still render the act of lying wrong or would it be justified to lie in such a case? What do you think is the Right thing to do? Are moral values absolute or are they subjective? Are they universal or are they social conventions instead? Do natural laws exist or do they evolve with time? Who decides between Right and Wrong? Without speck of a doubt, the ability to evaluate reasons for belief is one of the most fundamental critical thinking skills. It is the ability to reason indeed that differentiates human beings form other living organisms. However, one of the biggest dilemmas of moral reasoning remains to be its contradictory nature. We have the mental capacities to reason our belief in something; however, we are just as capable of analyzing it critically at the same time. Question of what is right and what is wrong are not always black and white. At times it seems like the societies are governed by natural laws and social conventions whereby there is a distinct categorization of right and wrong. On the contrary, however, it occurs to us on a great many reflections that problems of morality are relative, and subjective. To re strengthen our belief that reasoning about morality and the problems of morality are themselves contradictory in nature, we are going to cover a few case studies and then see if we reach any conclusion. A many in history nevertheless have made attempts at defining moral ethics and an effort to address to its problems too has been made. According to Protagoras, a Sophist, Man is a measure of all things. The implication is that right and wrong or good and bad, according to Protagoras, must always be considered in relation to a persons needs. Sophists had travelled around the globe splendidly. It couldnt have been anyone better but them to have realized that laws governing the city states and also the norms of a society could vary massively across boundaries. Hence their observation led them to raise questions based on morality and ethics that had to do with conception of what was natural and what was socially induced. Moreover, Sophists believed that there were no absolute norms for what was right and wrong. For instance the idea of natural modesty, to a Sophist who had travelled the world, was a matter of social convention. Had it been natural, it would have been something innate, something humans are born with. Since its seen to be taken differently across different places, not everyone everywhere is afraid or reluctant to show themselves off nakedly, that is not the case. Morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits.  [1]   However, other philosophers such as the legendary Socrates were of the view that some such norms were in fact absolute and universally valid. According to Socrates, He who knows what good is will do good.Hereby he meant to imply that a right insight will lead to right action and that the virtuous is one who does right. Therefore Socrates proposed that peoples reason and not the society, differentiates between right and wrong. Aristotle had a slightly different take on the issue. He propounded the Golden Mean whereby he emphasized the need to keep a balance. Only by maintaining balance and temperance, so the Aristotelian school of thought goes, does one achieve a happy or harmonious life. As seen hitherto answers to the problems of ethics and morality are not black and white in nature. There cannot be one absolute definition of Morals and Ethics and hence moral reasoning too cannot be chalked out in one specific manner. Moral Reasoning: We are discussing no small matter but how we ought to live.  [2]   One way of explaining Moral Reasoning is by categorizing it into two broad categories: i) Consequentialist Moral Reasoning ii) Categorical Moral Reasoning. Consequentialist Moral Reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act. Example of Consequentialist Moral Reasoning would be Utilitarianism according to which the right act is that which maximizes utility. Categorical Moral Reasoning on the other hand locates morality in certain duties and rights that have to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself. Therefore, according to Categorical Moral Reasoning, Murder is a Murder and the act of murdering is wrong irrespective of the circumstances of the act. Utilitarianism: This theory was proposed by David Hume (1711-1776) and defined further by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Utilitarianism stands by the slogan, the greatest good for the greatest number.According to Bentham the ultimate Moral Principle, namely the Principle of Utility, requires us to choose whatever action would have the best consequences. According to the utilitarian philosophy, we act in a way that maximized the overall level of happiness and pleasure over suffering and pain. In a nutshell, the right thing to do is to maximize utility. However utilitarianism is not as perfect a philosophical concept as it sounds. Some of the objections raised against utilitarianism are that it fails to respect certain individual rights and fails to acknowledge the rights of the minority (lesser number of people).Hence it is argued that certain individual rights of the minority cannot be traded off for the sake of utility. Secondly, it is not possible to aggregate all values. For instance, how would you assign monetary terms to values such as the value of life, respect, etc? Even if we could measure such values then how possibly could we have captured them according to a single uniform measure of value? Let us look at some of the cases concerned with morality in the light of Utilitarian approach and see for ourselves whether utilitarianism befits it: Case1: Euthanasia Mathew Donnelly, a physicist, had contracted cancer perhaps due to an over exposure of X-Rays. It cost him his jaw, upper lip, his nose, left hand, and two fingers from right hand. As if this wasnt enough, he was also left blind. Donnellys physician told him that he had just about a years time left to live. Donnelly, however, was in excruciating pain already, and he thought against better judgment that he would rather die than continue life in such a state. In an urge to free himself of misery and pain, he asked his three brothers to kill him. Two of his brothers refused to do so while the youngest one, 36-year-old Harold Donnelly, shot Mathew to death with a 3.0-caliber pistol. The question in point is whether Harold did wrong. According to social conventions and moral traditions which essentially dictate that the intentional killing of innocent people is always wrong. Hence according to moral traditions, Harold was wrong. However, Harold is assumed to have shot his brother for a no ble cause; he loved his brother and wanted to end his misery. Moreover, Mathew had himself asked to die. Therefore, in consideration of the consent (of Mathew), and noble motives (Harolds love for his brother and wanting to alleviate him of the pain), the point in case asks for a lenient judgment. Utilitarianism would have gone by whichever of the choices available to Harold at that point of time, had the best overall consequences. Utilitarianism would support that action which maximizes happiness for all concerned. Killing Mathew, a utilitarian would think, would free Mathew of misery and pain hence in this case a utilitarian would conclude that the greatest balance of happiness will be achieved for everyone concerned here, by euthanasia. Hereby euthanasia is morally right and justified. Amongst the western States, Euthanasia is legal only in The Netherlands, Belgium, and Colombia. United States renders Euthanasia illegal and terms it as an act of murder hence Haorld Donelly was arrested and charged. A question then arises whether Euthanasia be made legal provided its taken to be morally right by a utilitarian at least. On that point, John Stuart Mill says; The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their member, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.  [3]   Thus utilitarian believes that laws prohibiting euthanasia contradict general welfare of the society, and restrict peoples right to control their own lives the way they wish to. When Harold killed his brother Mathew, he did so in order to end Mathews miserable life in a manner that Mathew had himself chosen. Since the consequences didnt harm anyone, it shouldnt be a problem for anyone either. Things are now changing, in 2005, 58% of Americans were of the view that doctors should be allowed to help patients die who are suffering from painful incurable disease. Case 2 : Case of Queens Vs. Dudley and Stevens: Queens Vs. Dudley is a 19th Century famous British Law Case. The case put a huge question on the validity of utilitarian doctrine. It involves the shipwreck crew of four. After being lost at sea for 19 whole days, Dudley, the Caption decided to kill the weakest among them, the young cabin boy Parker in order that rest of the crew members survive feeding on his blood and body. On the 29th of September 1884, 1300 miles away from Cape, Mignonette was found. Richard Parker, 17-year-old cabin boy was the youngest of all crew members on Mignonette. He was an orphan and had no family. It was Parkers first voyage to sea and had gone against the advice of his friends. A wave hit the shaft, and Mignonette went down. The only food that the crew members had on them was two cans of preserved turnips. What was worse was that the crew members did not have any fresh drinkable water either. For the first three days, the crew members did not eat. On the fourth day, however, they opened one of the cans of Turnips and ate it. The next day, they cut a turtle and together with the second can of turnips, the turtle enabled them to survive for the next few days. For eight days, then, they remained of food and water again. The cabin boy Parker had by now gotten ill as he had drunk sea water. His condition was such that he appeared to be dying. On the 19th day, the captain Dudley proposed an idea that they should all draw a lottery to see who would die to save the rest. Brooks refused to do so and hence lotts werent drawn. Next day, there still wasnt a sign of a life boat , and it was in the midst of harsh conditions that Captain motioned Stevens that boy Parker better be killed. Dudley told the boy his time had come and killed him with a pen knife, stabbing him in his jugular vein. For four days, the three of the crewmembers fed on the blood and body of Parker. At last, on the twenty fourth day of the shipwreck, they were rescued by a German ship which took them back to England where t hey were arrested and tried. Dudley and Stevens went on trial while Brooks turned States witness. It turned out that the captain and his companion werent guilty much, they claimed to have acted out of necessity. They defended their stance by saying that under dire circumstances better that one should die so that three could survive. The prosecutor wasnt influenced; he said a murder is a murder hence the case went on trial. This leaves us with following questions rather objections to the doctrine Utilitarianism: Do we have certain fundamental Rights? If yes, then individual rights shouldnt be traded off and need to be valued. Does a fair procedure justify any result? What is the moral work of consent? Would an active consent at either the time of drawing lottery or at the point of death make so much of a moral difference that an act that is considered morally wrong, taking away someone life for example, would turn morally permissible after the consent? Shall the rights of a weaker being or a minority (in terms of count or numbers) be traded off for the sake of general welfare? Case 3: Baby Theresa: Publically known as Baby Theresa, Theresa Ann Campo was an anencephalic child, born in Florida in 1992.Anencephalic children are sometimes termed as babies without brains as important parts of their brain including the cerebrum and cerebellum are missing and so is the top of their skull. There is however a brain stem, present in such infants, that allows for their autonomic functions such as breathing and heart beat. Even on accounts of survival (from stillbirth), such infants do not live long and for whatever time period they live, they would still never be conscious due to malfunctioning of brain components. Thus Baby Theresas parents volunteered her organs for transplant thinking other needy children could perhaps benefit from the eyes, kidneys, liver, heart, and lungs of Baby Theresa after the transplant. Physicians too thought that it was a good suggestion forwarded by the babys parents that her organs be volunteered so that other children who are in need may benefit. A huge num ber of children need transplants each year but there are never enough organs available. Since Florida law does not permit organ removal until the donor is dead, Baby Theresas organs werent taken. Nine days later, Baby Theresa expired and it was too late by then to use her organs for other children as her organs had been damaged. The newspaper stories of the time opened up a heated debate whether it would have been right to remove the babys organs in order to help other children. If we probe arguments for and against the case, we would come to realize that the problem of removing Theresas organs in order to help other children is not as simple as it sounds. The debate was boiled down to three main line of arguments namely; The Benefits Argument, The Argument that we should not use people as Means, and the third line of Argument from the Wrongness of Killing. The Benefits Argument: Knowing that baby Therese is an anencephalic infant who is incapable of being conscious and is going to die anyway, her parents proposed the idea that Theresas organs be used for transplant in order that other children be helped. Apparently, they reasoned as follows: If we can benefit someone, without harming anyone else, we ought to do so. Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without harming Baby Theresa. Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs.  [4]   It is interesting to note how this very line of thinking has a division of opinions. On one hand, the contention that Therese wouldnt be harmed is a mere assumption hence the act of removing her organs, based on a mere assumption that she wouldnt be harmed, while she is still alive would be unjustified. On the contrary, however, under such circumstances her parents were right thinking that mere physical existence wouldnt benefit Theresa much provided that she would miss out on thoughts, feelings, connections with people and other normal human activities. Being an anencephalic infant, they must have thought, she is only virtually alive, and that being alive for a few days would not do her any good than ending a miserable life to save the lives of other children. Whereas those children who are in dire need of organ transplants would benefit greatly. Therefore, The Benefits Argument supports the proposition that Theresas organs be used for transplant to help other children. We should not use people as Means: This line of argument opposes the stance that Theresas organs be removed to help other children. It stands by the principle that people should not be used as means to benefit others. Using people is usually used in the context of violating peoples autonomy. Either through manipulation and deceit or by forcing people to do something against their wish, using others only to get our own personal benefits is wrong as it thwarts others autonomy. In Baby Theresas case we wouldnt be deceiving or manipulating anyone by removing her organs for transplant but we would indeed be using her organs to benefit others. In case you are thinking, that happens every time transplants are carried out, you are wrong. Transplants are carried out with the consent of people, and certainly not against their permission. Baby Theresa, however, is incapable of voicing her opinions or expressing her wish by any means hence the complexity of the case remains. Moreover, it can be argued that Baby Theresa does not have wishes in the first place and she is incapable of making any decision for herself therefore she is not really an autonomous being. Thus her parents decision on her part wouldnt really be a violation of anyones autonomy. This leaves us with two ways of thinking about the problem. One, by questioning what would possibly be in the best interest of Baby Theresa, and secondly, if she could have told us what she wanted what would she have said ? Unfortunately, Theresa does not have any preferences, and her interests, even if there were any, wouldnt be affected much since she would die soon after birth no matter what. It all boils down to only one option then which is to do whatever we think is best. Wrongness of Killing: According to most Western traditions, killing someone is absolutely wrong. Since most western states are dominated by the religion of Christianity whereby intentional killing of an innocent being is out rightly wrong and punishable, ethicists who believe in traditional morality would disapprove and condemn an act of killing. To them, killing is always wrong. Nowadays, however, consequence of the act and the circumstances under which the act was committed too is taken very much into consideration. So, according to this way of perceiving things, killing might not always be wrong such as in the case of Baby Theresa. Another approach to the problem would be to think of Baby Theresa as already dead. This might not be as awkward as it sounds after all Brain Death is now accepted at large as a criterion to pronounce someone legally dead. Eventually, Brain Death came to be accepted as real death because such people couldnt live conscious life due to malfunctioning of their brain cells. If brain death is redefined, to include anencephalic since they too lack any hope of conscious life as they do not have any cerebrum or cerebellum, then we would in effect regard anencephalic infants as born dead. Then removing their organs would not be regarded as killing them and hence the argument for wrongness of killing then stands void. Conclusion: In the light of the cases mentioned above, we may conclude that solutions to the problems of ethics and morality are not black and white. As we proposed and opposed line of arguments for the cases under consideration we noticed how reasoning about such matters is often contradictory in nature. Moral Reasoning seems to fluctuate between being definite to vague. One of the biggest dilemmas of human ability to reason is that much as it helps them reach a decision, it engrosses them too at times with contradictions and recessions thus rendering the decision-making process all the more difficult.

Definition Essay - Defining Freedom -- Expository Definition Essays

Definition Essay – Defining Freedom Is it possible to define freedom? To define freedom is more than a difficult task, but perhaps easier than one might imagine if not overanalyzed. Given ample time to consider the task, however, a simple, sufficient definition can present itself: freedom is the ability to choose, for any creature living life in any place in any time. There is no greater truth to the statement, and no underlying meanings; freedom is simply the ability to choose. So one might ask, "If this ability to choose applies to all creatures in all places in all times, why can freedom only be defined in the context of the specific creature whose definition of freedom is concerned?" That is simple. Freedom is something that can only be experienced to some extent; there is no such thing as absolute freedom. However, each varying life form has differing boundaries to which this freedom can conform. If such a thing as absolute freedom were to exist, then those who possessed it could do absolutely anything imaginable. One could then wonder, if there is th...

My Star- Lesbian Relationship :: Personal Narrative Relationships Papers

My Star I sat on the edge of her bed, with my head in my hands, crying. My heart was pounding and adrenaline rushed through my veins, making me feel sick to my stomach. I couldn't make myself calm down. I couldn't even take a breath. My hands trembled as I wiped the hair out of my eyes. I glanced through my tears at Star, huddled in the corner of her bright yellow room. She was curled up in a ball with her head on her knees, shaking. I stared, wondering what she was thinking, and what I should do. I wanted so badly to go comfort her as we both cried, but I felt as though I could never touch her again. I felt dirty, even evil. I began to question every belief I'd ever had, even who I was. I looked back down to the ground, and watched everything fade away as more tears formed in my eyes. I wanted to just disappear, to leave my body behind, and not have to deal with what was about to happen. My roommate Star and I had decided to go to Tampa to visit her family for the weekend. She stood over my bed one Friday morning, watching me sleep. I opened my eyes and smiled expecting her to crawl in like she did every morning after her first class, but instead she asked " You wanna come to Tampa with me?" She had a huge, fake smile on her face, as if she was saying please. I didn't hesitate. "Sure," I said as I made room for her next to me. How could I say no to Star, especially when she smiled at me like that? I didn't care where we were going, but I knew I didn't want to spend a weekend with out her. Star was the only child of two extremely religious parents, and attended Catholic school her whole life. She was very sheltered, and modest, whereas I am a very open-minded, liberal person, who is anything but modest. She was Hispanic, and had dark brown, short, curly hair, that she always hid with a bandana. Her eyes were almost black, and were so mysterious and deep that I could stare into them and get lost. She wore pointy, black glasses that I called her "sassy librarian glasses." She dressed how my friends would describe as "dykey.

Family Ties, Family Lost

The short story of Faulkner depicts the reality of life that is applicable to our world now. In most, if not all, societies, sons and daughters are below the level of the parents because they are younger and less experienced in life. Children are expected to obey their parents because parents know what is right and what is best for their families. After all, they have lived longer. Twinned with this obligation to obey their parents is the children’s duty to be loyal to the family.Blood if thicker than water, they say. Ties that bind the family are of a different kind, something that is not easily broken. In fact, his being a civil war veteran sealed the cuffs on his family. His wife could not say anything about his barn burning ways and neither can his sister. If the older people cannot stand up to Abner, there was no way that his son, Satry, can stand up for his own either. The way Abner Snopes had tied his son, Satry, to their family is not something that should be admired.A bner had so much influence over his family, especially over his son, that Satry cannot make a decision for himself. Blind adherence to the principles of obedience and family loyalty had tied him so tightly that when the time came that he was about to stand up for what he believed was right and moral, it was too late. His father was already dead. The last part of the story actually reminded me of the movie American History X, wherein the older brother was a convicted white supremacist who heavily influenced his younger brother.When the time came that the older brother was trying to reverse every single thing that he had taught his younger brother, somebody kills his brother. But even if he was too late, I admire the courage of Satry to leave behind the place that imprisoned his principles and to face the world on his own. In a sense, his father’s death was the baptism of Satry into the realities of the real world: that blind adherence to family can only get you so far and that at the end of the day, it is your principles, in Satry’s case justice, that will take you through this world.Parents will always have influence and power over their children, in the same way that Abner had so much influence of Satry. But it must be conceded that there should be a balance between the parents wanting what is best for their children and what the children think are the core principles and beliefs in their life. It is enough that the parents try to teach their children but at the end of the day, every single decision must be made by the child. After all, it would be the children who would live their lives and not their parents.