Elie Wiesel Persuasive Speech

1036 Words 5 Pages
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