Rappaccini’s Daughter - Perceptions, Impressions, and Interactions Ess

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Writers often use the characters in a story to make a comment on people's actions.   In "Rappaccini's Daughter," by Nathaniel Hawthorne, the characters make a telling comment on the interaction of people within society.   Hawthorne, a "thinker and artist" (Delbanco 14+), creates characters that are much different from what they seem like initially, and this encourages the reader to look deeper into issues instead of judging things by first impressions, rumors, or appearance.   Cappello defines the judging of people as "how [people], in general, translate or read the world" (263).   Hawthorne probes how people look at one another through his portrayal of Baglioni, Rappaccini, Giovanni, and Beatrice and their reactions with and toward one another. Baglioni's character initially makes readers believe that he is a helpful doctor, and the text of the story constantly shows him wanting to aid Giovanni.   Baglioni begins the story by supposedly clearing up the mystery regarding Rappaccini and his daughter:   "You shall hear the truth in respect to the poisoner Rappaccini and his poisonous daughter, yes, poisonous as she is beautiful" (Hawthorne 271).   He even remarks to the misguided Giovanni that Rappaccini "cares more for science than for mankind" (Hawthorne 259).   The picture that Baglioni paints scares both Giovanni and the reader into believing that horrid things are going on at Rappaccini's mansion.   Cappello believes that Baglioni is obviously "aware of the power of his language" (266).   Baglioni's advice continues, and he even warns Giovanni through a historical fable that depicts a woman "nourished with poison from her birth upward " (Hawthorne 270).   All of these warnings achieve their goal of helping t o formulate Giovan... ...presentative Men.'" Diss.   University of Toledo, 1988.   DAI 50-02A (1989): 0443.   Moss, Sidney.   "A Reading of ÔRappaccini's Daughter.'" Studies in Short Fiction 2 (1965):   145-156. Nelson, Ronald.   "Two Potential Sources for Pierto Baglioni in Nathaniel Hawthorne's 'Rappaccini's Daughter.'"   Studies in Short Fiction 28.4 (1991):   557-564. Predmore, Richard.   "The Hero's Test in 'Rappaccini's Daughter.'"   English Language Notes 15 (1978):   284-291. Ross, Morton.   "What Happens in 'Rappaccini's Daughter.'"   American Literature:   A Journal of Literary History, Criticism, and Bibliography 43 (1971):   336-345. Stoehr, Taylor.   Hawthorne's Mad Scientists:   Pseudoscience and Social Science in Nineteenth Century Life and Letters.   Hamden:   Archon Books, 1978. Uroff, M.D.   "The Doctors in 'Rappaccini's Daughter.'"   Nineteenth-Century Fiction 27 (1973):   61-70.   

Religion in the Workplace Essay

People around the world have a set of beliefs whether they choose to believe in Jesus Christ or not to agnostic and gnostic, everyone has a set of beliefs which they hold on to. However the question arises on how can we practice it outside our homes specifically at work without imposing other people’s rights who may not hold to the same views as one does. How does the view of a utilitarianism, deontology, and relativism tie into this matter, and could we find a balance on both sides to come to a logical conclusion on how things could be run at a workplace. People seem to shy away when it comes to talk about religion and politics for good reason. One cannot come out of the conversation agreeing with the other side so they revert back to relativism which is a go to for some trying to avoid confrontations, but what about our rights to religious practice at work? Where does one draw the line? We were born with the freedom of choice, this includes choosing to believe in what others tell you, to listen to things etc. One can easily choose to leave the room or place, but where it gets troubling is if it takes place during a meeting and the other persons morals are founded strongly on their religious beliefs and they just might either make or break a company based on their decision or performance. Why though do we feel as if we need to have the right to express ourselves? Well as Mosser., K explains â€Å" because religion is such a basic part of a person’s self-conception, someone may feel his or her right to the free expression of religious beliefs is restricted by not being allowed to state them when and where he or she wishes.† A company may reap the blessings of a group or an individual true Christian and still not be biased to that  person only because of the good that is coming out of it. This would result in good for the greatest number of people according to a utilitarianism view. However there is another side to the coin even in the same ethical theory. Rule utilitarianism states that â€Å"allowing the majority’s religious views to be imposed on a minority does not create the greatest good for the greatest number.† (Mosser K.,) This also brings into light that people cannot be forced into something that they do not want to accept. Christianity was never meant to be forced upon people, but over the years it has been twisted to mean something other then what is true though there are those who still hold faithfully to what is right. Even at mandatory work functions one cannot force prayer or religious service on one without possibly violating state laws. Sam Grover explains â€Å" most likely any prayer or religious service that accompanies a mandatory work event or meeting would violate Title VII discrimination laws under the same reason used in Townley.† (Grover, S. 2010) The next question one could ask themselves how much is too much, when someone continuously asks to attend church or has their bible out on their office desk? Harassment has taken place in the workplace when â€Å"an employee is required or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of employment† (Grover, S 2010) A person by no means base their decisions on whether a person is of the same beliefs and or style of worship to give them the greatest good even if that particular religion is the biggest in the workplace, and leave the others hanging dry. In an article written by ACLJ it speaks about prayer in the workplace as being legal, stating â€Å"In sum prayer is not illegal, unauthorized, inappropriate, nor improper – and as long as employees pray before or after working hours, or during official breaks, there should be no problem at all.† (ACLJ 2012) So the person cannot make it mandatory for anyone to participate in a religious gathering nor can they hold it against them in terms of gaining a status at a job, and make it into a utilitarian view on them. So what are the outcomes of the utilitarianism over an issue like prayer in the workplace? One can practice their religion on their own personal time as long as it does not conflict with work and can perform their duties while on the job. The greatest good that comes from this view is that all people are protected in some way or form, but we will always have those who have ethical egoism and that is what the greatest number of people are protected from in the laws that are set forth. Using the view of deontology (Golden Rule) it serves as a good foundation and rule of them to treat others. This view however when looked at and studied, that part of scripture is telling the reader not as a reactive approach, but for them to go and do unto others regardless of how they may treat them. Also, the way this view could be used and twisted is if another person from a different very radical belief thinks it is right for them to force it upon other people talking to them about it at work. No one needs to feel the stresses of a job and then put on top of that, dealing with religious views that one apposes. These laws that were put up were not only to protect the people, but also in a way for the religion. This does not in fact mean to keep going up to someone and throwing scripture at them, unless one wants to have a lawsuit against them and the company, but to be able to meet the other person half-way and realize that I might not like them pushing their beliefs down my throat either. Deontology ethics is grounded in the â€Å"Categorical Imperative† by Immanuel Kent states â€Å"The Categorical Imperative simply declares act as if thy action were to become by thy will a universal law by nature.† We should live our lives to help all mankind and that by this we write our own morals. Would we be okay with others adopting our actions and be able to live with what they do to us since we did it first unto them? If we are at a workplace and there are no regulations established on prayers in the workplace and no guidelines whatsoever set in place. Would one put their beliefs out there and start the religious movement at work by their  actions, but be able to handle and live peacefully when another religion that strongly apposes theirs comes into the picture? Is it better to just leave it at home rather than starting something that perhaps one may not be able to handle very well? Relativism works hand in hand with this issue simply because it is used as a means to get out of a discussion and end it at a peaceful ending instead of coming out of it with a reasonable answer. This only adds to the ongoing issue and cannot solve a problem in the workplace, there are those who by their faith need to pray a certain amount of numbers a day which can in turn affect their work and if given special treatment for this may cause some division amongst co-workers. With utilitarianism, deontology and relativism we see different ways on how all this could play out in the end and while trying to figure out the right decision for everyone. The laws are there to protect people from having to conform to something that they do not believe in but at the same time must meet the freedom of choice in the other persons personal views as long as it does not hinder the good standing work order. References Mosser K., Bridgeport Education Inc, 2013 Ethics and Social Responsibility Grover S., FFRF Summer 2010 http://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/item/14007-religion-in-the-workplace ACLJ 2012 http://aclj.org/workplace-rights/religious-expression-workplace http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deontological-ethics.htm

Should Children Be Treated As Kids, Not Wild Animals

The topic that I have selected has impacted me throughout personal family experience. I plan to argue: Hyperactive children have been considered to have a behavioral disorder in which medical treatment is necessary. Hyperactive children should be treated as kids, not wild animals. Understanding that not being able to focus, being excessively overactive, and not being able to control behavioral issues is a problem, but all medication have their side effects. It’s more the damage a pill, or a douse of medicine will cause a child. I am introducing this topic to an audience that does not know anything about this issue by sharing my personal experience relating to my 12 year old cousin, Felipe. When ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity†¦show more content†¦No disorder should be compared to any illness. Children are being treated over a situation that can be cured mentally other than being treated like animals. As the semester continues, I want to answer: Why are doctors t reating ADHD like it’s a disease? Can we just sit a child down and teach them right from wrong instead of drugging them with pills to calm them down? Children shouldn’t be relied on medication. In continuation, parents shouldn’t even consider that this is the only option. Medication is just a simple way to get rid of the fact that doctors don t want to take the long route to get rid of the situation. As long as someone gets paid, there is no problem in just writing a medical and prescription bill to send someone off. The things that I am planning to research on this topic vary from what is ADHD and what causes it to what medication is use to help the problem. To find this information, I will research websites, essays, medication backgrounds, documentaries and articles involving this dilemma. Along the way I want to understand in what way physically and mentally it affects children as they grow. As I was saying earlier, my cousin ended up being diagnosed with ADH D. In school he was the number one troublemaker. He would disrupt class, never pay attention and would always be