Contrasting Macbeths Two Meetings With The Witches :: essays research papers

In Shakespeare’s Macbeth there are two instances in which Macbeth comes into contact with the three witches. These two instances are located in Act 1 Scene 3 and in Act 4 Scene 1. In both scenes Macbeth is informed about his future. However, these two scenes are greatly different from each other in many ways. When Macbeth first meets the witches in Act 1 Scene 3 he doubts that the witches are â€Å"of this earth† and doubts that they are capable of basic abilities such as speech, evidenced by the question, †Speak, if you can, what are you?† In the second confrontation with the witches, Macbeth believes that the witches are real and thinks them to almost be superior. He shows this by attributing the witches with awesome powers when he says to the witches, †Though you untie the winds and let them fight against the churches†, meaning that he believes the witches are capable of manipulation of these natural phenomenon. In addition, he asks Lennox if he had seen the witches leave, showing his belief that the witches are, in fact, real entities that exist in his world. In addition, when Macbeth first meets the witches, he does not believe the prophecies given to him by the witches. This is best said as, â€Å"and to be king stands not within the prospect of belief, no more than to be Cawdor†. This exemplifies Macbeth’s disbelief in the prophecies that he is to become the Thane of Cawdor and the King of Scotland. In the second meeting, however, Macbeth devoutly believes in the predictions of the witches, as the first set has come true. This is evident as Macbeth seeks the witches’ prophecies and also says, â€Å"I conjure you, by that which you profess, howe’er you come to know it, answer me†¦Ã¢â‚¬ , showing that he believes the witches regardless of how they know the future. The predictions themselves have great differences. In the first meeting, the witches tell Macbeth three things that will be his rise to power. The three prophecies that forecast Macbeth’s rise are, â€Å"Hail to thee, Thane of Glamis!†, â€Å" Hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor!† , â€Å"All hail Macbeth, that shalt be king here after!† In the second meeting with the witches, however, Macbeth receives three predictions that will lead to his downfall and ultimately his demise. These three prophecies are shown to Macbeth, rather than told to him.

Bridging Deontological and Teleological Ethical Perspectives

Buddhism espouses the concept of â€Å"karma† which refers to the chains of causes and events in the universe (Reichenbach, p. 137). A person who has experienced something good in life is said to have good karma whereas the opposite is true for the person who has experienced something bad. In a way, karma serves as the law of moral causation precisely because moral and immoral acts result to good and bad consequences, respectively. Thus, doing something good can ultimately lead to a morally sound consequence whereas doing something bad can eventually lead to an immoral effect.In any case, the â€Å"something† in â€Å"doing something† can be either right or wrong in itself. Similarly, the â€Å"something† in â€Å"doing something† can also be either right or wrong with respect to its consequences. Taking the Buddhist concept of karma and using it within the context of ethics, the result is an understanding of the connection between karma, deontologi cal and teleological ethics. For the most part, deontological ethics is a branch of ethics that deals with the moral worth of actions.That is, the moral worth of something depends on the rightness or wrongness of the act that causes it. For instance, aborting an unborn fetus in order to save the mother is morally wrong essentially because abortion kills a living being and is, therefore, wrong in the first place. In deontological ethics, the rightness or wrongness of an act is fundamental in determining whether an action is ethical or unethical, which implies that the basis for saying whether an act is moral or immoral is the act itself.Connecting that thought with the Buddhist concept of karma, the totality of all the chains of causes and effects in the world is the summation of all actions that are inherently good or evil regardless of their consequences. As a result, the foundation of the Buddhist concept of karma when viewed from a deontological ethical perspective is the action itself no matter what the consequence may be. While deontological ethics treats actions and their consequences separately when identifying the moral worth of actions, it does not mean however that actions and their consequences are inherently separate.Rather, they remain tied insofar as they remain causes and effects to one another. On the other hand, teleological ethics is primarily concerned with the consequences of actions in determining their moral worth, which is why most teleological ethical theories are also called consequentialist ethical theories. The moral worth of an action can be gauged in terms of the consequences it leads to. For instance, aborting a child may save the mother, thereby making the act of abortion in the specific circumstance morally permissible and ethical at the same time.So long as the consequences are favorable, an action remains moral as far as teleological ethical theory is concerned. With that in mind, the Buddhist concept of karma sits comfortably with teleological ethics. That is because karma involves both causes and effects; no action can be determined as either right or wrong if there is no consideration for the consequences it leads to. Taken as a whole, there is strong reason to believe that karma shares several revealing characteristics with the philosophical formulations of both deontological and teleological ethical theories.In most case, teleological and deontological ethical theories are often placed on extreme poles primarily because each treats the moral worth of action in distinct ways. However, the Buddhist concept of karma can provide a common ground for both ethical theories at least in terms of one thing—the causation of events in the universe. Buddhist Karma and Deontology Immanuel Kant is one of the foremost philosophers who favored deontology throughout his career. Kant once argued that human beings should not be treated as means to an end but as the ends themselves (Sokoloff, p.770). In other wor ds, a person should not use another person as a way for him to achieve his desires. Rather, that person ought to treat the other person with respect and dignity precisely because the welfare of other persons should be at the helm of every human pursuit. That idea closely resembles the â€Å"golden rule† which proposes that a person should act towards other people in the way that he expects himself to be treated by others. Deontological ethics, therefore, prescribes that actions are morally right because of their morally right nature.Given the fact that karma in general is the totality of all causes and effects in the universe, it can also be said as the totality of all the interactions among human beings with other fellow human beings. Although karma is not entirely limited to such an interpretation, it nevertheless accepts the fact that interpersonal interaction—apart from humanity’s interaction with the surrounding environment—can be the respective caus es of certain effects and effects of certain causes.A society can be composed of individuals treating one another as means to an end, as ends themselves or a combination thereof. Take all societies in the world and the picture becomes broader yet clearer. In a way, interpersonal interaction has a substantial role in the general karma of all things. There are countless numbers of individuals from across the world taking part in the activities that occur on a daily basis. Somewhere in North Korea, there may be a person who is morally condemned for constantly threatening neighboring countries through the testing of potentially dangerous nuclear armaments.Somewhere in the United States, a policeman avoids offers of bribe due to the belief that the act of bribing in itself is morally wrong even though the money given can be enough to sustain the officer’s family’s financial needs for another month. Somewhere in Saudi Arabia, a man pays respect to his elders by making them h appy through gifts because he believes that his elders are human beings who deserve all the happiness in the world just like anybody else. These interactions and all the rest happening in the world as we speak comprise a portion of the general karma of things.Performing actions that are inherently ethical or unethical can influence the way in which karma takes places. The favor may be returned or not. Either way, both ethical and unethical actions play a role in the chains of causes and effects in the universe. Buddhist Karma and Teleology The key principle in teleological ethical theory is the idea that an action is morally right or wrong depending on its consequences. One version of that idea is utilitarianism which grants that an action is good if it leads to the greatest benefit of the greatest number (Freeman, p.313). Conversely, a person’s actions or decisions are morally right if it actually promotes the welfare of the wide majority of people involved or concerned in t he situation. On the other hand, an action is wrong if it does the exact opposite, which is either to promote the welfare of the few or to cause harm to the majority. Teleological ethics, therefore, implies that the consequences of an action largely determine its moral worth. In the case of utilitarianism, determining the moral worth of an action is possible if the consequences can be quantified.If teleological ethics depends on the consequences of actions, it will also naturally involve the relationship between the cause and effect of any given circumstance. In effect, good karma can be characterized as karma resulting from the good consequences of an individual’s actions or decisions. On the other hand, bad karma can be characterized as karma resulting from the bad consequences of a person’s acts. In both cases, there is the presumption that there are causes in the same way as there are effects.That presumption underscores the principle that the relationship between causes and effects significantly determines not only the rightness or wrongness of actions but also their good and bad valuations in terms of Buddhist karma. When taken from the broadest perspective of teleological ethics, karma can be seen occurring in almost every part of the globe. A president of a certain first-world country deciding to aid people living in impoverished countries through foreign aid can certainly give good consequences to an immense number of people.In effect, the benefits these people will be receiving through the aid can be said as part of their good karma. On the other hand, the praises from the international community and the appreciation of the people at the receiving end of the foreign aid can also be said as part of the good karma for the president. Another example is when one nation decides to declare war on another distant nation. The results can be devastating, the most significant of which is the possible loss of countless lives.For both sides partici pating in the war, the bad karma can be easily seen not only for the people who lived to witness and experience firsthand the atrocities of the war but also for the generations that will follow. Karma interpreted in the context of teleological ethics can also refer to ordinary events on a smaller scale. A person taking the law into his own hands by murdering another person for vengeance will be jailed. Consequently, the jailing of the murder convict can be said as a form of bad karma. A person gaining a new friend by sharing the table to another stranger in the public library can be said as good karma.At any rate, the consequences of our actions determine our actions’ moral worth, and it is from the relationship between the consequences and the actions where Buddhist karma can be taken from. Deontology’s Karma versus Teleology’s Karma What are the differences between deontology’s karma and teleology’s karma? For the most part, it can be said that b oth deontological and teleological ethics attempt to categorize moral worth of actions, the former in terms of the nature of the actions and the latter in terms of their consequences.Although the difference largely rests on what to use as the basis for the moral worth of an action, the undeniable similarity is that both ethical theories touch the Buddhist concept of karma. At the least, the concept of karma provides the common ground for the ethical theories that are commonly labeled as anti-thesis to one another. Since karma presupposes causes and effects, it must also deal with the relationships that exist between them.On one hand, the relationship can be viewed in terms of the â€Å"cause† determining its own moral worth independently from the â€Å"effect†. On the other hand, the relationship can also be viewed in terms of the â€Å"effect† determining the moral worth of the â€Å"cause†. In both instances, the causes naturally lead to their effects e ven though the basis for identifying their moral worth differs. As Kaufman writes, karma is â€Å"not only about the causes of an effect insomuch as it is not only about the effects of a cause in any given circumstance.Rather, it is about the marriage of the two† (Kaufman, p. 16). This inseparability of the cause from the effect—or vice versa—in terms of Buddhist karma is the reason why it can be said that deontological and teleological ethics are looking at the same coin only focusing on different sides, so to speak. They look at the same relationships although each one concentrates on a distinct angle—deontology on the cause and teleology on the effect. Karma and General Ethics Damien Keown writes that karma â€Å"inevitably concerns a person’s character† (Keown, p.331). That is because a person’s character can influence his actions and decisions as well as the effects of such actions and decisions. In effect, the chains of universa l causes and effects involve the overall moral characters of all people. Karma becomes intertwined, as it does in fact, with the ethical inclinations of individuals. In general, ethics is concerned with the rightness or wrongness of things. It offers a wide array of ethical precepts which people are expected to follow in order to live morally upright lives.Karma, on the other hand, implies a person’s capacity to make his own decisions and, therefore, his capacity to self-determination as opposed to abiding by a predetermined fate. Taken together, ethics provides options for individuals to fully realize the things that they want to achieve. Ethics provides frameworks for people to use in order to make decisions and enact them based on what is morally permissible. Keeping in line with what is morally permissible is said to lead to good karma while deviating from what is moral can lead to bad karma.Deontological and teleological ethics are just two of the ethical doctrines that individuals can follow in order to attain a favorable karma. Although deontological and teleological ethics are both unique to the point that they contradict one another in terms of what to use as basis for determining the moral worth of actions, they also come into terms within the context of the Buddhist karma. They share the common belief in the causation of things; everything happens for a reason. Either the cause in itself is the reason for the act’s moral worth or the effect determines the moral worth of the action.Works Cited Freeman, Samuel. â€Å"Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right. † Philosophy and Public Affairs 23. 4 (1994): 313-49. Kaufman, Whitley R. P. â€Å"Karma, Rebirth, and the Problem of Evil. † Philosophy East and West 55. 1 (2005): 15-32. Keown, Damien. â€Å"Karma, Character, and Consequentialism. † The Journal of Religious Ethics 24. 2 (1996): 329-50. Reichenbach, Bruce R. â€Å"Karma, Causation, and Divine Inter vention. † Philosophy East and West 39. 2 (1989): 135-49. Sokoloff, William W. â€Å"Kant and the Paradox of Respect. † American Journal of Political Science 45. 4 (2001): 768-79.

Vaccination Controversy - 1554 Words

Vaccination Controversy Julie S. Bertram Excelsior College Authors note This paper was written for MLS 500: Graduate Research and Writing taught by Dr. Kyla Hammond Most healthcare professionals and leaders attribute vaccination as the single-most important reason for increasing the health of the human population during the past one hundred years. As a result, required immunizations are common in the U. S. and other developed countries. However, there is a segment of society who argue against vaccination due to worries that immunizing negatively impacts future health. More and more information is becoming available that presents allopathic vaccination in an ugly light. (Sharma, 2003) For the past century, vaccines for diptheria,†¦show more content†¦It is apparent that most parents feel safer vaccinating their children than they do not vaccinating which is reflected by the high vaccination rate in the U.S. (Largent, 2012) On the other hand, more vaccines mean more side effects. Increasingly, parents are anxious regarding the expanding volume of immunizations that they are supposed to permit their medical providers to give to their children. Not just the risk of each vaccine, but the volume of vaccines makes parents nervous. Children in the U.S. are now expected to receive between twenty-six and thirty-five vaccines before the time they enroll in kindergarten. (Park, 2008) Most of these vaccines are given before a child is eighteen months old, which also creates anxiety for parents. As many as six vaccines can be given at a time during a typical pediatric appointment. This can be a significant concern for parents, especially when the same pediatrician stresses the need to introduce foods one at a time to be able to identify potential allergic reactions. The addition of each vaccine increases the likelihood of the occurrence of side effects. Of great concern is the fact that the U.S. has one of the high est infant mortality rates in the developed world. (Largent, 2012) Could this be related to the fact that American infants are given the greatest number of vaccines? It might be safe to assume if vaccines were effective at protectingShow MoreRelatedThe Controversy Of Vaccination Of Vaccinations1562 Words   |  7 Pagesmore light on this unfamiliar concept. My topic will be about the controversy of vaccinations. I am going to research its history, the effect on your body, advantages and disadvantages. I am also interested in the reasons behind not getting vaccinations for your children, even when the parents could be willingly risking their child’s health and other children’s health. Furthermore, I wonder how doctors and professors view vaccinations and if they believe vaccinating your children is mandatory. TheRead MoreThe Controversy Of Vaccination Of Vaccinations2442 Words   |  10 PagesMy topic will be about the controversy of vaccinations. I am going to research its usage, the effect on your body, advantages and disadvantages. I am also interested in the reasons behind not getting vaccinations for your children, even when the parents could be willingly risking their child’s health and other children’s health. Furthermore, I wonder how doctors and professors view vaccinations and if they believe vacc inating your children is mandatory. The reason why I chose this topic is becauseRead MoreVaccination Of The Vaccination Controversy1499 Words   |  6 PagesThe Vaccination Controversy in Ohio According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, a vaccine is defined as â€Å"a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting that person from disease† (â€Å"Immunization†, 2017). Children begin the vaccination process at birth and continue to receive vaccines throughout he or she’s adolescent years. The vaccinations are peremptory in the protection from diseases, such as, Hepatitis A, MeningitisRead MoreThe Controversy Of Childhood Vaccination1173 Words   |  5 Pages Vaccinations are something that is none around the world. It is supported in many countries but in others it is not. In the United States there is a constant controversy as to whether to vaccinate or not. Most parents in our society opt for the vaccination process to protect their children in any way they can. Although, many parents do not see it that way. The controversy of childhood vaccination spans back mor e than just a few years it goes back as far as the 18th century (Nelson) but the factRead MoreVaccination Crisis And Controversies Of Africa1620 Words   |  7 Pages2017 Midterm Report: â€Å"Vaccination Crisis and Controversies in Africa† The Africa past colonial, past aftereffects, and its evils like malnutrition, illiteracy, war and the refusal of a part of the population in the developed countries especially in America to let American children get vaccinated raised the problem of vaccination especially in a bruised population in Africa. The current problem is whether to suspend vaccination campaigns or to continue the vaccination for the welfare of childrenRead MoreVaccinations Should Be A Big Controversy Essay837 Words   |  4 PagesVaccinations have become a big controversy and interest in society. Should I get vaccinated? Should I not? Should my kids be vaccinated? What’s in the shots? Harmful or not? Many questions and demanding answers have been asked. You can be for it or against it. Each side has their own view on the vaccines. Vaccinations are freedom of choice. There are benefits and side effects for each side. In this paper I will be explaining points of views and statistics on each vaccine. Eve ryone is entitled toRead MoreVaccination Controversy Of Vaccinating Children2521 Words   |  11 PagesVaccination Controversy Vaccinating children has become an issue many parents are taking personally and debating on a regular basis. Several parents vaccinate their children, but do they really know what they are vaccinating for? Most vaccines are necessary for children to gain immunity. Immunity from severe diseases that are part of our history, such as: Measles, Polio, Pertussis, and Diphtheria are essential to everyone. Vaccinating for these serious diseases is a must to keep children healthyRead MoreThe Controversy Of Vaccines : Controversy Regarding The Risks Of Vaccinations1824 Words   |  8 PagesThe Controversy of Vaccines Controversy concerning the risks of vaccinations will always exist. As is the nature of a preventative intervention, it is difficult to rationalize giving a completely healthy child an injection that is known to have varying degrees of sides affects5. Additionally, these injections are to provide immunity to children for diseases that have an extremely low risk of circulating within a population. Since these vaccines have been able to protect so many individuals from experiencingRead MoreHPV Vaccination Controversy Essay examples697 Words   |  3 PagesHPV vaccinations have been involved in some heated debates involving the general public and the government for some time now; whether the vaccine is worth being administered to young girls is the underlying question and if so at what cost. In the articles â€Å"HPV Vaccine Texas Tyranny† and â€Å"The HPV Debate† both authors Mike Adams and Arthur Allen provide enlightening information on why the HPV vaccinations shoul d not be mandated through legislation, Adams conveys his bias and explains how the governmentRead More Controversy About Vaccinations Against Infectious Diseases Essays1085 Words   |  5 PagesVaccination Against Infectious Diseases Vaccines are one of the most controversial topics in modern medicine and will continue to attract more attention in the years ahead. Most new parents dutifully take their babies to their doctor to be vaccinated, at the prescribed times. However, over the last few decades, there have been several scares concerning vaccinations, and the possible side effects of them. Some parents have refused to have their child vaccinated because