Cassius Words in Shakespeares Julius Caesar Essay -- Julius Caesar E

Cassius' Words in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, the importance of Cassius and Brutus' dialogues in Act 1, Scene 2, lines 135-78 to the play is that it enables Cassius to deceive Brutus to join the conspirators. Cassius' words in this passage show that he is a very cunning individual who persuades Brutus to join the conspirators to rid Rome of his so-called " tyranny."    Cassius' words expose his hypocritical nature during his conversation with Brutus. At one point, during the ceremony to offer Caesar the crown after his victory in battle, Brutus remarks, "I do fear the people choose Caesar for their king" (79). Cassius seizes that opportunity and convinces Brutus to join the conspirators. He claims Caesar was a tyrant: "He doth bestride the narrow world / like a Colossus and we petty men / walk under his huge legs and peep about / to find ourselves dishonorable graves" (135-38).    Not only does Cassius use Brutus' fears to influence him to join the conspirators, but also in line 162, Cassius hovers and p...

The Foundations Of Roman Empire’s Success

During the ancient times, imperialism was not a very uncommon phenomenon. Those were the days wherein bloodsheds happened almost everyday—those were the days wherein land conquests were the emerging trend and helmets, shields and heavy armory are considered as distinct fashion statements. Although fear and anxiety crippled the lives of many individuals, it cannot be denied that imperialism is one of those unforgettable events that readily shaped and moved the face of history. Generally speaking, the word empire originated from the Latin expression â€Å"imperium (Howe 13). Imperium, in return, translates to exercising sovereignty and authority. In the meantime, emperor is the title given to empire rulers. However, it is important to note that emperors go beyond being a political figure. More often than not, an emperor is viewed as someone who has the skills and influence of a military person. One of the most celebrated empires that have ever existed on this planet is the Roma n Empire. It is known for its wide scope and reach. Long before sea explorers have circumnavigated the world, the Roman Empire has already conquered the Western horizon. For the founders of these regimes, the act of observing authority and sovereignty translates to two core concepts. First, to achieve authority, more lands should be conquered, thus waging or creating wars is a must. Second, in order to ensure sovereignty, laws should be established and fully implemented. The success of the Roman Empire is indeed a notable one. Its major accomplishments remained unmatched and it had certainly contributed to the creation of civilization’s main pillars. Despite of the fact that the empire suffered from an ill-fated decline, it cannot be denied that its victory came about because of successful law implementations, efficient leaders and of course, a complex and highly organized military system wherein defeat was close to being non-existent. Roman Empire A Brief Overview From 509 BC to 264 BC, it would be too hard to imagine that Rome was actually plagued by different threats and invasion attacks (Spielgovel 75). It never occurred to anyone that this great empire was once belittled by those who attempted to conquer it. However, instead of perishing into oblivion, the darkest times of the Roman Empire worked well to its advantage. The scourge that almost annihilated it, turned out to be its greatest blessing. Instead of accepting its ill fate, the Roman Empire decided to strengthen their military force. The empire knew that if it has the strength and the necessary skills, it would not only defend its territories, it can also conquer other domains and therefore exercise its power and authority. The Roman Republic played an important role in the empire’s growth. Once and for all, the institution permitted the fusion of the government and the military rule (Spielvogel 76). In this case, the military, since it has a political function can participate on how to embark on their missions rather than waiting for the rulers’ permission (Spielvogel 76). This set-up also allowed Rome to further develop their army’s strengths and skills. These efforts did not go in vain. By the time 266 BC came, Rome has finally taken over the whole Italian peninsula (â€Å"Roman Empire†). Yet, the empire’s strength was further highlighted when it was able to conquer Carthage (Spielvogel 79). Carthage is an important domain for the empire. Aside from the fact that it controlled trade in the Mediterranean, it was also a strategic location (Spielvogel 79). Even though Hannibal, a renowned Carthage general was popular for his military skill and prowess, he has no matched for the newly reformed Roman army (Spielvogel 79). Carthage’s unfortunate loss meant that Spain, Sicily and North Africa would soon become Rome’s provinces (â€Å"Roman Empire†). Soon, Rome’s territory extended to Asia Minor, Syria, Judea, Greece and modern France (â€Å"Roman Empire†). The Pillars of Success One of the main reasons behind the formidable success of the Roman Empire can be attributed to its seemingly invincible army (Whittock 14). More than anything else, it is the empire’s military that is responsible for its glory and prestige. Even in recent years, the elite Roman Army symbolizes the bastion of highly remarkable skills in combat and warfare. If Roman politics did contribute, this is simply secondary to what the army did. As Christopher Mackay described, the Roman Empire’s political triumph was primarily based on militarism (p. 59). In land conquests, it is the army that ensures the defeat of the empire’s enemy. This is something that cannot be readily accomplished by the ruling politicians of Rome. In addition to that, defending the empire from unexpected counter-attacks was also performed by the military. It is for this reason that the Roman army can be described as one of Rome’s main pillars and foundations. The Roman Army readily reflected its Greek influences (Whittock 14). However, one of the striking differences was that it was more organized and it continued to improve as the empire invaded more lands or territories. In the beginning, military men were ranked according to their respective social classes (Whittock 14). Those who have the means have the privilege of wearing armored suits that can protect them throughout the battle (Whittock 14). However, the lower classes had to purchase their own battle gears (Whittock 14). On a critical perspective, this situation was really unfair to those who are at the bottom of the economic hierarchy. To risk their lives in war wherein there is uncertainty of whether they will go home alive or not, cannot be really described as a noble activity. Therefore, loyalty in this case cannot be assured (â€Å"The Roman Army†). Later on, joining the military became a profitable source of income for those who wanted to take part in the group (Whittock 14). Basically, the discrepancies based on social class slowly disappeared. Being a military man became a profession (Whittock 14). Those who were enlisted were given gold coins and a piece of land upon there retirement (Whittock 14). This particular reform appealed to many. On a much closer examination, soldiers often have to worry not only about the injuries that they may suffer in the war. They are also worried about leaving their families behind. More than anyone else, they need security. The gold coins and the piece of land gave these individuals the assurance that they have something to come back for. In a sense, this also served as a motivational force for them to continue fighting and win wars (â€Å"The Roman Army†). It was also this reform that paved the way for the Roman Empire’s notable legion (Whittock 14). On the other hand, it was not only the benefits of being a military man that inspired the Roman Army to win. According to Whittock, the army was also very strict and highly disciplined when it comes to their training (p. 15). As a matter of fact, the group even built practice camps so that they can handle their opponents very well (Whittock 15). Relatively, as the army subdued more lands, the size of the army became bigger and bigger and as the old saying goes, there is indeed strength in numbers. There was an overflowing supply of soldiers needed to win the battle. There were also craftsmen, engineers and swordsmen, ready to build the necessary infrastructures to build the city of Rome and the weapons that they need in the war. Rome indeed suffered during the early years, but still they emerged as the victorious one in the end. As Roberts described it â€Å"Rome usually lost its first battle but always won the last (p. 306). † Aside from the military strength that the empire once possessed, another reason for its success can be attributed to the emperors’ efficient leadership. This is most especially true as for the case of Augustus (Potter xiii). Under his rule, Rome was still at the onset of recovering from the ravages of war and series of political upheaval (â€Å"Roman Empire†). It is also important to note that Augustus replaced Caesar who was then assassinated (â€Å"Roman Empire†). In this case, civil unrest was indeed, inevitable. However, the moment that he was put on power, he made various political reforms, which are primarily patterned on strengthening family relationships, thus making the empire more united (Potter xiii). As Sheffer mentioned, Augustus represents the â€Å"innovative leadership (p. 26). It was under his rule that Pax Romana was basically achieved, thus giving the empire a more stable and dependable government (â€Å"Roman Empire†). He reconstructed the Senate (â€Å"Roman Empire†) and it was also under his regime that land grants and retirement benefits were given to the military (Wells 18). Consequently, the foundations established by Augustus gave the succeeding emperors a framework wherein they can efficiently rule the government. Good leadership did not only bring stability, it also garnered the support and loyalty of the Roman public. Given this situation at hand, the next rulers of Rome simply needed to continue what Augustus started. Lastly it cannot be denied that the creation of a legal system (Saxonhouse) sustained the success of the Roman Empire. If there is a government, then it follows that a set of rules should be applied. This will ensure that the decisions made by politicians would be of service of the whole populace. In addition to that, the legal system assured that the people are systematically governed, thus preventing total anarchy. Conclusion Indeed, without the military, the Roman Empire would never be established. However, if not for its strong leader such as Augustus, for example, managing Rome and its colonies would soon turn into a disaster. Moreover, the legal system ensured that the interests of the majority shall overcome the interests of the few.

Utilitarianism, By John Rawls And Robert Nozick - 1486 Words

Utilitarianism is a moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. An action conforms to the principle of utility if and only if its performance will be more productive of pleasure or happiness, or more preventive of pain and happiness, than any alternative. The rightness of an action entirely depends on the value of its consequences, this is why the theory is described as consequentialist. The â€Å"separateness of persons† is an objection against utilitarianism stating that the theory fails to recognize people as distinct individuals. It rejects the allowance of one person’s loss to be offset by another person’s gain, and it is only the net sum total that ultimately matters. Recognition of the â€Å"separateness of persons† is needed to put constraints on such trade offs. In this essay I will lay out the theory of utilitarianism and explain the â€Å"separateness of persons† objection pr esented by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Ultimately I do think they present a successful argument, since utilitarianism is detached from individuals it can lead to grotesquely immoral consequences when put into practice. Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics supporting the idea that the morally correct course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing totally benefit and minimizing suffering. By ‘utility’ in this sense we mean ‘happiness’ or ‘pleasure, or similar. Although there are many varieties,Show MoreRelated The Fight for Human Rights Essay3126 Words   |  13 Pagesprotagonist to fight for the protection of rights. John Stuart Mill, Robert Nozick, and John Rawls provide a philosophic framework for evaluating the security-for-rights compromise. Though their respective theories vary greatly in theory and in practice, they provide models to condemn this exchange. Nevertheless, each differs in the persuasiveness and effectiveness of their tools for argumentation. Mill’s utilitarianism, Nozick’s libertarianism, and Rawls’ egalitarian liberalism reject the tradeoff ofRead MoreShaw and Barry Essay934 Words   |  4 Pagesdistinguish two different forms of utilitarianism. What are these two forms? Briefly describe each and use examples. Two different forms of utilitarianism are described in our text. The first is called act utilitarianism. According to Shaw and Barry, act utilitarianism states that we must ask ourselves what the consequences of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected (p.60). The second form of utilitarianism is called rule utilitarianism. According to our text, thisRead MoreThe Role of Justice in Society2403 Words   |  10 PagesThrough the egalitarian reasoning of John Rawls and the act-utilitarianist perspective of J.J.C. Smart, I will analyze the concept of justice. In accordance with Rawls, I intend to argue that any changes in society that will increase the burden carried by the poorest 5% are unjust, even if these changes increase the average level of happiness for the other 95%. With regard to ethics, justice is defined as fairness, where all situations should be treated alike. For one to exhibit justice, one mustRead More The Role of Justice in Society Essay2374 Words   |  10 PagesThe Role of Justice in Society Through the egalitarian reasoning of John Rawls and the act-utilitarianist perspective of J.J.C. Smart, I will analyze the concept of justice. In accordance with Rawls, I intend to argue that any changes in society that will increase the burden carried by the poorest 5% are unjust, even if these changes increase the average level of happiness for the other 95%. With regard to ethics, justice is defined as fairness, where all situations should be treated alikeRead MoreRawls Theory Of Justice1905 Words   |  8 Pages Rawls Theory of Justice Ming Chi Wang 36979110 University of British Columbia John Rawls in his work, â€Å"A Theory of Justice,† aims to make up a theory that will rivals intuitionalists and utilitarianism, which seeks truth in morality that cause results in maximizing utility for the maximum number of people. Rawls’ theory of justice is a distribution theory that maximizes primary goods for the worst outcome an individual could be in. By primary goods, Rawls informsRead MoreJohn Rawls : A Theory Of Justice Essay1726 Words   |  7 Pages1a. In John Rawls: A theory of justice, Rawls state that you must imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. I would say another word for the veil of ignorance can be the curtain of the unknown. I would say the curtain of the unknown because the veil of ignorance is just like a curtain that is put up and behind it no one knows who they are. No one knows their race, their wealth status, their intelligence, their assets, nationality, etc. You know nothing about yourself orRead MoreUtili tarianism Versus Rawls Versus Nozick2479 Words   |  10 PagesUtilitarianism is fine if your among the winners justice is better if you are not Utilitarianism is the moral philosophy that the morally right action is that which leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The term justice means getting what you deserve both good and bad. However there is significant disagreement between justice theorists as to what causes who to deserve what. In this essay I will be discussing John Rawls concept of contract justice and Robert NozicksRead MoreJohn Rawls and Utilitarianism2033 Words   |  9 PagesJohn Rawls and Utilitarianism Heath C. Hoculock The social contract theory of John Rawls challenges utilitarianism by pointing out the impracticality of the theory. Mainly, in a society of utilitarians, a citizens rights could be completely ignored if injustice to this one citizen would benefit the rest of society. Rawls believes that a social contract theory, similar those proposed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, would be a more logical solution to the question of fairness in any governmentRead MoreAnalysis Of Ethical Ideologies By Jeremy Bentham1748 Words   |  7 Pagesconstructed a policy of utilitarianism. In the ideal utilitarian community, every action taken is for the sole purpose of increasing the happiness of the citizens. This principle of utility disregards the unhappiness of the minority citizens in order to maximize the pleasure of the majority. As a result, this presents a flaw in utilitarianism: it does not value the individual rights of the people. Rather than allowing people to live their lives as they please, the ideology of utilitarianism is prepared toRead MoreThe Principles Of Distributive Justice2244 Words   |  9 Pagesvariably to different kinds of goods. Distributive justice is a critical concept in the theory of justice and many thinkers have formulated their own concept around it. The thinkers that I will analyze and discuss their views and theories are Plato, Rawls, Walz er, JS Mills, and Bentham. The criteria that I believe that morally justifies a distribution of goods are merit and need. In my view a just world will allow those in need and those with skills to be of top priority when it comes to the distribution