Do you believe that you would have followed through with orders? Granting the situation complex, following through with these orders eliminates the basic moral code that proposes killing someone to save your own life is wrong. This is not only an extremely selfish act but it is also very against my moral code. The breaking of trust through an act of murder selfishly dedicated to consequential morality.
|Published (Last):||17 March 2019|
|PDF File Size:||9.11 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.53 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Do you believe that you would have followed through with orders? Granting the situation complex, following through with these orders eliminates the basic moral code that proposes killing someone to save your own life is wrong. This is not only an extremely selfish act but it is also very against my moral code.
The breaking of trust through an act of murder selfishly dedicated to consequential morality. Why does the narrator mishandle this execution? He understood that Gregory was of the same equality as him and his people. The enemy? Gregory himself? The brutality of war? With this power the narrator possessed, came a very difficult burden. But they all knew there is always a choice. The narrator chose to locate morality in the consequences of an act and with this decision came accountability. Bravery is defined by someone who knows harsh consequences and honorably sacrifices themselves for the betterment of others.
He chose death. The innocent hostage, the good man, was killed because he chose to suffer for consequential morality. Gregory denied the chances he was given to escape knowing the possible penalties his people would have to face. His bravery and ability to stay a hostage thrived off of the hopeful trust he had towards his captors. Although knowing the possible outcome of his situation Gregory did his very best to coddle his captors. He considered himself their friend, and equal partner although they looked upon him as lesser.
His death was long lasting because of the connections he has made with the captors. This death was inflicted on a good man, a morally correct man who lived bravely sacrificing his own life to better our world. Gregory lived well. His life was short and filled with betrayal but far from sad.
The consequences Gregory had undergone as an innocent hostage strengthened our world of decency. Gregory died fighting, but not for his life.
He died an innocent brave victim fighting for his moral beliefs of justice and sacrifice.
Their arguments mainly focused on the power that each institution should hold. Gregory felt that the papacy should play a larger political role in the western church and that lay investiture was against the will of God. Henry was conservative and did not want Rome intruding any more on his rule of the Holy Roman Emperor and accused Gregory of being a usurper and a fraud. The Eastern Roman empire was comprised of great monastery influence, wealth, high population, and urbanization. In contrast, the West, being the worst of the heirs of the Roman empire, was impoverished.
Who Was Gregory The Great?
Cite Panos Ioannides wrote a story about loyalty, friendship and irony, which he called, simply, "Gregory. An English prisoner named Gregory develops Stockholm syndrome, where the captor and captured form a positive bond. The irony of it is that no one ever checked up on the orders to have Gregory killed. The situational irony of it is that that cost him his life. Ironicaly that decision cost him his life instead of saving it like he thought. The second opportunity is after they got the execution order. In this part of the story the narrators loyalty to his country is being tested as well as his friendship with Gregory.