On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate U.S. president Ronald Reagan, with hopes of impressing Jodie Foster, an actress he had an obsession with. While Hinckley was charged multiple offences, however, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Nonetheless, he was forced to face the consequences of his actions in a mental hospital for more than 30 years. Similarly, people make choices everyday that can make them responsible and liable for the consequences that follow. People are responsible for their decisions when they make them of their own free will, when they know the consequences, and when they are of sufficient age or maturity.
When people make decisions without coercion, society holds them responsible for their …show more content…
Lyttle and speak with him about his theory on the banning of letters. In fact, Nate took upon the moral responsibility to do so, he made a choice to help the island of Nollop when it was not his own obligation. In a similar fight against conformity in real life, Sheila Abrams decides to teach her children in a different manner than the norm, writing, “I taught them what I believe - to question authority, to speak out” (“Teaching Conformity”). The writer realized that her children’s school was teaching conformity, not individuality and she makes a decision to make sure her children are taught the way that recognizes their curiosity and individuality. By doing so, Abrams acted upon her beliefs and out of her free will lets her children “speak out” in school. The responsibility of this choice falls on Abrams; she has to take care of what her children do at school. For example, when one her her children spoke out in their class, they were sent to the assistant principal’s office for insubordination. By encouraging them to be different and outspoken, she has to face the consequences her children do, ultimately defending them for their misguided actions. In the workplace setting, business …show more content…
Society places younger children at a lower standard of responsibility for their actions than adults. The younger the child is, the less responsible society holds them. In Dunn’s novel, the High Council made a choice to allow “Children seven and younger, however, may bizz and bazz to their heart’s content” (13). The High Council acknowledges that the children seven and younger are not mature enough to understand the banning of letters. They hold children seven and younger at a lower standard due to their young age and immaturity. In the school setting, Abrams explained how school administrators and teachers held her children to a higher standard as they progressed through school, “The older they got, the more of a fight it was to defend their individuality, their intellectual curiosity and their healthy skepticism for authoritarianism and conformity” (“Teaching Conformity”). The school faculty expects older students to be more mature than younger students. Once students reach the peak of maturity, many of their actions cannot be brushed off and they are forced to face the consequences of their actions. Abram’s children are expected to follow the rules and expectations as they grow older to be of sufficient maturity. Indeed, Abrams finds it harder to defend her children because her children are older and society holds older people more responsible. In support of older people
When people make decisions without coercion, society holds them responsible for their …show more content…
Lyttle and speak with him about his theory on the banning of letters. In fact, Nate took upon the moral responsibility to do so, he made a choice to help the island of Nollop when it was not his own obligation. In a similar fight against conformity in real life, Sheila Abrams decides to teach her children in a different manner than the norm, writing, “I taught them what I believe - to question authority, to speak out” (“Teaching Conformity”). The writer realized that her children’s school was teaching conformity, not individuality and she makes a decision to make sure her children are taught the way that recognizes their curiosity and individuality. By doing so, Abrams acted upon her beliefs and out of her free will lets her children “speak out” in school. The responsibility of this choice falls on Abrams; she has to take care of what her children do at school. For example, when one her her children spoke out in their class, they were sent to the assistant principal’s office for insubordination. By encouraging them to be different and outspoken, she has to face the consequences her children do, ultimately defending them for their misguided actions. In the workplace setting, business …show more content…
Society places younger children at a lower standard of responsibility for their actions than adults. The younger the child is, the less responsible society holds them. In Dunn’s novel, the High Council made a choice to allow “Children seven and younger, however, may bizz and bazz to their heart’s content” (13). The High Council acknowledges that the children seven and younger are not mature enough to understand the banning of letters. They hold children seven and younger at a lower standard due to their young age and immaturity. In the school setting, Abrams explained how school administrators and teachers held her children to a higher standard as they progressed through school, “The older they got, the more of a fight it was to defend their individuality, their intellectual curiosity and their healthy skepticism for authoritarianism and conformity” (“Teaching Conformity”). The school faculty expects older students to be more mature than younger students. Once students reach the peak of maturity, many of their actions cannot be brushed off and they are forced to face the consequences of their actions. Abram’s children are expected to follow the rules and expectations as they grow older to be of sufficient maturity. Indeed, Abrams finds it harder to defend her children because her children are older and society holds older people more responsible. In support of older people