Moral vs Immoral Essay Example

Moral vs Immoral Essay The purpose of this essay is to analyze the Shakespearean play, Henry V. This historical play provides the reader with the background on the causes and effects of the actions of a king attempting to hold on to his throne. Throughout this play, King Henry V is forced to make many choices, which affect his public view as a leader. His actions are not always honorable. Henry must act immorally and unforgivably, in order to maintain the stability of his reign. This is demonstrated in a few ways. He must choose the path of least resistance in order to maintain a domineering public perception. He must make a difficult choice in the execution of one of a close personal friend. He must choose his battle tone after his army lands at the gates of the town of Harfleur. One of his first moral choices came at the beginning of the play. The English Church, at the time, was a very powerful and rich institution, second only to the throne. Henry is approached by the Archbishops of Canterbury and Ely, and convinced into attacking France, using his right to the French throne as an excuse for the invasion. Even though Henry chose to follow the advice of these men, he places any blame for its failure on their heads. He cites the possibility of a Scottish uprising against England after his troops depart for France, and the lack of proper homeland defense that would occur should his army assume this task. Another instance in which Henrys morals are challenged is during his audience with the Dauphin. Henry has already decided to invade France, yet after he is publicly humiliated by the tennis ball gift form the Dauphin, he proceeds to explain that because of the Dauphins ignorance, the blood of the French people will not be on his hands. His failure to take res ponsibility for the impending battles, and placing the blame, not once but twice on others, clearly displays his low morals. We will write a custom essay sample on Moral vs Immoral specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Moral vs Immoral specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Moral vs Immoral specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer One of the most difficult choices a person can make is that of the greater good. King Henry is challenged by this situation early in the play. He has already chosen to invade France and documentation was presented to him about the thievery and traitorous actions of three of his countrymen. These men include Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey. Scrope was a personal friend of Henrys and it disturbed him greatly to learn of his treasonous acts. The process by which Henry came to his decision about the traitors fate was a very unique one. While Henry already had knowledge of their actions, he asked the three for advice on the fate of a drunken man who was incarcerated for making remarks against the throne. Henry told them that he was leaning towards amnesty for that individual and requested the three mens counsel about his decision. All three agree that the man should be executed. What Henry does is wonderful. He frees the drunk, and informs the three men that they are to be executed for treaso n. They had no mercy for that individual, so he had no mercy for them. His friend Scrope even offers him a bribe in order to spare his life. Henry rejects the offer and the execution goes on as scheduled. The double-standard precedent set by Henry shows early signs of his immorality. He deals out monarchial punishment on a whim and there are no clear-cut rules. At the beginning of the invasion of France, Henrys army lands at the northern port city of Harfleur. Henry chooses to take a very no-nonsense tone with the citizens of Harfleur. He announces that, under no uncertain terms, the city is to surrender to his army and do it quickly. He warns the leader of the city, that if his mandate is not followed to the letter that he has authorized his army to murder, rape, pillage, and cause total destruction of the town and all who dwell within it, including women and children. He takes this tone because of his fear of the loyalties to France by the townspeople. Charles VI, King of France, is intimidated by the English force and offers a compromise. He offers Henry some land and the hand of his daughter, Catherine, in marriage, but not the French crown. Henrys, now increasing greed, is getting the better of him. He believes that his subjects would see this offer, if accepted, as a sign of weakness and does not have much choice except to reject the offer. The French are unable to fortify Harfleur and surrender the town without the firing of a single shot. Henry now has a forward operating base in which to conduct further operations in his attempt to conquer France. In this situation, Henry uses immoral tactics in order to achieve his goal of domination. His brutal words towards the French women and children are barbaric. At first, I had to consider if it was a bluff, or if he truly meant what he said. I think that he realized that the taking of France was the only way to maintain his popularity as ruler of England. Once he spoke the words he had no choice but to carry out his threats, regardless of its morality. In conclusion, this play, Henry V, demonstrates some of the forced morality choices that were almost required if one was to maintain the kingship. In those times, indecision or weakness displayed by a ruler meant his overthrow and usually death. I think that the phrase, rule with an iron hand, fits this play perfectly. Henry had no choice but to act immorally and unforgivably, in order to maintain the stability of his reign. The must underlying immoral act that Henry chose was the act of war itself. He regretted the bloody way his father ascended to the throne yet, he took a similar course to maintain it. Even though it would have meant the end of his reign, if saddled with high moral values, he would have chosen another course of action. War is the ultimate immoral act.

Literature essays

Literature essays Literature has been divided into many periods or eras according to what they emphasize. In the Romantic Period, the Romantic writers stressed the ideas of exploring exotic settings, whether past or present, and contemplating the natural world. Romantics do not trust "civilization," they think the cities are a place of corruption and believe in the dominance of the physical world. Transcendentalism, popular from the mid 1830s to the mid 1840s, was based on the German philosopher Immanuel Kents ideas. They declare that individuals need to gain knowledge of God through reason and not organized religion. They believe the physical world is only a reflection of the spiritual world. In contrast to the Romanticists' beliefs of the physical world being dominant, the Transcendentalists believe the spiritual world dominates. Transcendentalists strive towards being a perfect, complete person. Ralph Waldo Emerson, probably one of the most influential writers during the Romantic Period, expands greatly on the ideas of Transcendentalism and is a strong believer in the concept of self-reliance. The self-reliant man does not conform to the policies of society that he does not believe in, but takes his own initiative to support his beliefs. He will sacrifice anything he has to in order to sustain his values. Emerson was such a strong believer in nonconformity and self-reliance that he wrote an essay entitled Self-Reliance in which he elaborates on his ideas of how a man should act in a society. Many other writers during this time are influenced by Emerson. One of those writers is Richard Wright, who wrote an autobiography entitled Black Boy. He tells how he grows up and how he could rely on himself to get through his struggles. Richard Wright is a primary example and is the embodiment of Emersons self-reliant man. For the most part Wright has to grow up on his own, learning valuable lessons...