Dale Carnegie once said that “most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.” In other words, those who continue to persist despite difficulty for what is right will achieve the most satisfaction and gain the greatest reward in life. This is apparent through watching Ingrid Visser fight for killer whales and by observing certain characters in The Crucible by Arthur Miller. In both examples, it is suggested that when a wrong is being committed by those in power, it is necessary to challenge the beliefs of those individuals in order to protect the rest of society.
In the 17th century play The Crucible, certain characters such as John Proctor and Rebecca …show more content…
In both cases there is a wrong being committed by those in power. For example, in The Crucible, the leaders of the court are in a distorted state in which they don’t know who is telling the truth and therefore enforce rules that have deadly consequences for the innocent. Parallel to this are Visser’s main competitors, parks like SeaWorld. These parks are almost as corrupt as the court in that they are mainly motivated by money and therefore cannot discern between right and wrong when it comes to the welfare of the animals they are making their money off of. It was necessary for Visser to stand up to the companies in order to protect the captivated animals and allow them to experience a real life in the ocean and with their families. Equally, the actions of John Proctor and Rebecca Nurse in standing up to the court to protect the truth were needed in order to protect the others of their society. One can infer this by looking at the scenario and motives of the court in wanting these two individuals to confess. If they were to confess, it would add reliability to the court’s hunt and give witchcraft a sense of credibility in that both of them were respected individuals in the town before this. So, the confessions of Proctor and Rebecca would lead to more deaths in that people would not rebel as convictions continue and spread. In both situations a small group or individual is standing up to greater, depraved larger force in order to protect others of their respective
In the 17th century play The Crucible, certain characters such as John Proctor and Rebecca …show more content…
In both cases there is a wrong being committed by those in power. For example, in The Crucible, the leaders of the court are in a distorted state in which they don’t know who is telling the truth and therefore enforce rules that have deadly consequences for the innocent. Parallel to this are Visser’s main competitors, parks like SeaWorld. These parks are almost as corrupt as the court in that they are mainly motivated by money and therefore cannot discern between right and wrong when it comes to the welfare of the animals they are making their money off of. It was necessary for Visser to stand up to the companies in order to protect the captivated animals and allow them to experience a real life in the ocean and with their families. Equally, the actions of John Proctor and Rebecca Nurse in standing up to the court to protect the truth were needed in order to protect the others of their society. One can infer this by looking at the scenario and motives of the court in wanting these two individuals to confess. If they were to confess, it would add reliability to the court’s hunt and give witchcraft a sense of credibility in that both of them were respected individuals in the town before this. So, the confessions of Proctor and Rebecca would lead to more deaths in that people would not rebel as convictions continue and spread. In both situations a small group or individual is standing up to greater, depraved larger force in order to protect others of their respective