Elie Wiesel Persuasive Speech

Improved Essays
Voice 1: Hey, other disembodied voice within the void of physical non-existance?
Voice 2: Yes, other voice with in the void?
Voice 1: Lets have a chat.
Voice 2: All right. But if we’re in a Buddhist state of non-existance how could we have this conversation in the first place?
Voice 1: Ah, but that is a question for another time. I want to ask: do you think that a person must have good will in able to do the right thing?
Voice 2: I see that you are still pondering about silly mortal questions. Nonetheless, I would say that one does not need to have good intent to do good. In the end, it is the action itself that matters. No one knows, or really cares, about intent as long as the result is positive. For example, let us say that there is a mortal
…show more content…
But have you ever heard of the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions?”
Voice 1: Let’s not appeal to an artificial authority set by a quote here…
Voice 2: Fair enough! However, the quote does raise a good question. Does having good intentions necessarily mean a good outcome? No! In the end, it is the consequence that matters. I am sure that Hitler thought he was doing good to the world by ridding it of Jews. But instead he caused the world much suffering, the consequence of his actions was clearly negative. People are misguided when it comes to right and wrong.
Voice 1: Oh Godwin, you are a beautiful bastard. The point you are making could easily be used against you. People can be just as bad as determining what would be most pleasurable to the most amount of people. Especially the selfish ones… It would be easier to have a set of rules that say “do this.”
Voice 2: That may be the case; however, I would argue that easier isn’t always better, especially in these cases. I would much rather people ponder the consequence of their actions, rather than if they have good intentions. Because when it comes to moral theories such as these isn’t the main goal to make sure that in the end everyone is happy and not make everyone think, self-righteously, that they are
…show more content…
If the minority do not enjoy an action will it be effecting them for days, months, years? If it does, then the majority should rethink their actions. In the end, even your thought wants us to do good because society has deemed it that it is right to do this because it would elevate a kind of suffering from the world that ill will has a high probably of causing.
Voice 1: However, that reasoning to cause the most pleasure is in effect a good will. Our will must be good to want to cause the most pleasure and minimize suffering. Since one has a good will, they will most likely carry out the right act, whether that is an effective act is irrelevant.
Voice 2: And here we come back to one of our first points, one does not have to have good will to do good. Yes, the good willed are more likely to carry out an act that maximizes happiness but it is not necessary to happen. Even if the person did not mean good, if we praise them then maybe they can be persuaded to act so that it maximizes everyone’s happiness and not just their own. So I would agree with you on the point that a good person is more likely to carry out an action that has a good consequence but there are always exceptions to a

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    If the ultimate goal is to maximize one’s well-being, then it would seem that acting unjustly would be reasonable. Contrastingly, if an action improves another’s well-being, if it is morally good, then it would be considered just. It is debatable whether or not one can commit an act of justice, and, in doing so, maximize one’s own happiness. Many would claim that just acts are solely for the sake of others and always at the expense of one’s own self-interest. However, I would argue that committing just acts can inadvertently lead to an increase in happiness for some people.…

    • 1130 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    George Berkeley argues that an objective reality does not exist. He argues for idealism, the belief that the external world does not exist and only the mind and ideas do, by arguing against materialism, that an objective reality does exist. Berkeley believes that an objective reality does not exist because of issues that come with materialism. However, his points do not make much sense as he relies on faulty ideas. He presents his argument by mentioning how materialism is unverifiable; that we cannot verify there is an objective reality, pointless; there is no need to posit an external world, and incoherent; our senses cannot be external objects.…

    • 1136 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Moral Theory By Rachels

    • 1124 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Sometimes, it is better to turn the other cheek, be positive, and not start a fight, even if the other person doesn’t deserve your kindness. We can only hope that the people receiving our positive vibes will be positive toward us. When you really think about it, Rachels’ theory on treating others based on the way they act is actually a part of the Golden Rule. Rachels’ theory comes in on the first receiving part of the cycle. What the receiver picks up is what guides them on how to treat the original sender.…

    • 1124 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Kant believed that actions are morally correct if these actions come from virtues that motivate these actions. Whereas Aristotle believed that you should do anything in your power to be happy. This means that as long as you are happy that is the highest good, even if you have to do something illegal it doesn’t matter because in the end you are happy and that’s all that matters. Aristotle’s point of view is quite selfish because it only talks about your own happiness. You don’t take other peoples feelings inconsideration when making decisions, you just do what is best for you.…

    • 1570 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The will to do good is always good and this is not to get something out of the will to do good. Kant expressed that acting from the good will is the only way to be moral. It’s not the consequences from the actions that matter but to do them for the right reasons to begin with. The only genuinely good actions are out of respect for the moral rules. Acting in anticipation from reward or punishment are not moral acts.…

    • 1112 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It brings satisfaction and true happiness. Therefore if you look at the bigger picture once, one overcomes these imbalances in their life, they will reach happiness, this is otherwise know as the transition from Vice to Virtue. Another pro of their views is that, it controls want and self intrest. Humans who act only by want cannot achieve virtue because true justice is only found by what is moraly right and not by what one wants or what they think is…

    • 733 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Utilitarian Vs Mill

    • 2422 Words
    • 10 Pages

    This opens the possibility to using harmful acts, such as murder, cheating and lying to ensure that group happiness is existent in a large amount. If that were to occur, then people would be prone to deceiving one another and not treating each other as equals. Instead, they would be treating each other as stepping stones to their ultimate goal, without regarding their feelings or the consequences that may arise. Pleasure and happiness can come from more appropriate means, such as from decisions that have been thought over and carried out. The utilitarian approach would create more chaos in the world and skew moral judgement, due to its moral flexibility.…

    • 2422 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The assumption is that if we follow a set of rules that give us the best consequences our actions will result in the greater good for everyone around us. Some strengths of utilitarianism include the importance of happiness, consideration of the greater good, and relevance of intention. Meanwhile, Some disadvantages of utilitarianism are that it is not the only thing of value and the end doesn't justify the means. Mill and Kant have opposite views points, Kant thinks people can decide what is moral through reason alone and Mill thinks that through experience people can determine what is good or evil based on pleasure and…

    • 901 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Since it is clearly the second rule, then the right act is to follow that rule. There are times where the justice system doesn’t follow that rule. Does a rule allowing the violation of people's rights bring about more happiness than a rule prohibiting actions that violate people's rights? No, so follow the rule prohibiting the violation of people's rights. Rules against lying, and in favor of loyalty (favoritism) to friends/family would also promote the greatest happiness and so following those rules is…

    • 1557 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid. Just like Kant, I can only believe the external world to exists on faith, and nothing more. Although I have reason to believe the premise that an external world exists, I cannot prove the premise. Therefore, I cannot construct a conclusion based on such a premise. However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist.…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays