Seven Essay -- Film Movie Movies

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  For this report I choose the movie Seven. This movie was released back in 1995 and stars Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt, Gweneth Paltrow, R. Lee Ermey, John McGinley, and Kevin Spacy. Seven was directed by David Fincher and written by Andrew K. Walker.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The movie begins with the usual old cop, who is about to retire, and teams up with a young, ready to take on the world cop. The first act begins promisingly, with two cops being assigned to their first case together. One is white and the other is black and they have vastly different investigative styles. Each murder, being investigated by Lieutenant William Somerset (Morgan Freeman) and Detective David Mills (Brad Pitt), is based on one of the Seven Deadly Sins, which are Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Envy, Wrath, Pride and Lust. The detectives find an enormously fat man who is forced to eat himself to death-Gluttony. The detectives discover a high profile lawyer who is made to cut off a pound of flesh for Greed. They find hooker who has been killed by having sex with a man that we will just say?s wearing an apparatus on his body for Lust. A runway model is forced to choose death or disfigurement for Pride. Sloth was a man that had been tortured for a whole year. He had been barely kept alive and his hand had been cut off for his fingerprints. He is the only victim that does not die but is a complete vegetable in such a fragile state that he would be better off dead. For envy and wrath we will come back to in a bit. The kil...

Michael Huemer: “America’s Unjust Drug War” Essay

In the essay â€Å"America’s Unjust Drug War† by Michael Huemer, Huemer discusses the facts and opinions around the subject on whether or not the recreational use of drugs should be banned by law. Huemer believes that the American government should not prohibit the use of drugs. He brings up the point on drugs and how they harm the users and the people in the user’s life; he proves that the prohibition on drugs in unjust. Huemer believes that drug prohibition is an injustice to Americans’ natural rights and questions why people can persucute those who do drugs. The most prominent argument against the use of drugs is the harm it has on the users. Although drug use is potentially very harmful to the users the government should not be allowed to prohibit people from harming themselves. Many things people regularly take part in are equally as harmful as drug use such as â€Å"smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, eating too much, riding motorcycles, having unprotected or promiscuous sex†¦(Huemer, Para. 5).† There is no way that the government can prohibit all those acts for it is not any of their business. One might argue that drug use is more harmful then those acts, they would be wrong in most cases because all of those acts lead to death which is as harmful as you can get. The Office of National Drug Control Policy claims that drugs kill eighteen thousand Americans a year while tobacco kills four hundred and forty thousand Americans per year. Another relevant statistic is obesity causes up to four hundred and twenty thousand deaths per year. Neither tobacco smokers nor obese people have been punished yet many drug users are imprisoned. Another point prohibitionists suggest against the use of drugs is that drugs harm one’s quality of life however many other things harm one’s quality of life such as dropping out of high school or working at the same job your entire life; all of these are choices people make and the only choice that is persecuted is doing drugs, the others are considered ridiculous to persecute. The money that drug users use on money is equivalent to those who gamble or spend it on frivolous things leaving both lives at smaller quality, yet the drug users are persecuted. Although the use of drugs has the same affects on other people’s life choices drug users are persecuted and people who make equally life-threatening choices are left to make those choices with no persecutions. Another argument against the use of drugs is the harm it potentially has against the people around the users. People around drug users do have the potential to be harmed from them yet so do many other things; driving could potentially hurt people and many other things, yet anyone who has a license can drive a vehicle without being persecuted. Every choice in life has risks of hurting people yet the only one choice is persecuted; drugs. Although it seems absurd to punish people for being inconsiderate or making not so good choices the outcome of their choices on the public are similar to drug users. If drugs are truly unjust then America has over four hundred and fifty thousand people in jail unjustly. They are not just being punished for no reason they are being punished for exercising their right as a human, making their own choices. Everyone has the right to choose to do drugs or not to do them. If there was a drug that took away the users freedom to make choices or to attack and hurt other people then the government could step in and help, however no drug exists that have that effects on people. The belief supporting that it is a human right to choose to do drugs comes from the idea that everyone owns their own body. So a person can make any choice as what they can do to their body, harmful or not. An example of this can be seen in the woman’s right to have or not have an abortion. Some people believe it is the woman’s choice because it is her body but others believe she should not be allowed to because it hurts the fetus, which is potentially a live human. Most people support the belief that people have the right to choose what the do to their body however with this right you may not use their body to harm others. Prohibitionists argue that drug use is not ones right over their body because the drugs are making the choices and not the person freely, maybe it is not their fault they have abused drugs it could have been psychological compulsion or something similar. It is still unjust to persecute these people because they are not morally responsible for that choice. However if users do freely decide to use drugs then they are exercising their rights and the government has no right to interfere. Overall Huemer looks at all the prohibitionists arguments that could be thought of and disproves their belief on the laws against drug use. Huemer believes it is a human right to choose to do drugs just as it is to eat whatever food you choose even if it makes you obese, or smoke as many cigarettes a day even though you will probably die, and the choice to have an abortion. With life you have many choices you can make and with that choice comes the chance of hurting yourself either physically or mentally as well as people that surround you. In conclusion Huemer fully disagrees with the prohibits on the use of drugs in America with his belief that the persecutions are fully unjust as well as inhumane with many people in jail because they chose to use drugs.

A Hero of Our Time - Lermontovs Views Through Pechorin

Lermontov’s Characters and Russian Society In A Hero of Our Time, by Mikhail Lermontov, the author uses the multiple settings in each book to express different characteristics of Pechorin, which reveals Lermontov’s views of 19th century Russian society. Lermontov’s views of 19th century Russian society become apparent in many of his works, especially his novel A Hero of Our Time. Each town in the novel aspires different characteristics of the main character, Pechorin. Every characteristic revealed through the towns epitomizes the buildings of a socially acceptable male during this time period. The town of Taman lacks a formal government in 19th century Russia and the people of this time struggle to avoid sickness. Pechorin looks down†¦show more content†¦Pechorin’s decision to never back down from a duel parallels to Lermontov’s life and how he fought like a man in order to be thought upon as a man. Lermontov died from a duel, however he was a military man, and he never backed down from t he duel that ended his life, which exemplifies his strong role as a Russian male of the 19th century. Cossack Village, a town in The Fatalist exemplifies the importance of the male’s military experience. During this time, males enrolled in the military through force and competition. Lermontov served in the military, which parallels to why almost every man in the novel served in the military. Enlisting and serving your role in the Russian military exemplified the role of a man. Pechorin knew the military style well, since he partook that role. â€Å"That new suffering created within me a fortunate diversion – to speak in military style† (Lermontov 162). Military style exhibits Pechorin’s sense of manhood and its importance. Lermontov arrays himself through the character of Pechorin by making him a military man, and never having him relinquish his duties that come with it. The men in the novel wear their soldier clothing with pride and justice. â€Å"Hence the pride with which he wears his thick soldier’s cloak†¦Grushnitski is looked upon as a man of distinguished courage. I have seen him in action† (Lermontov 85). A sense of pride overwhelms theShow MoreRelatedThe s Usage Of Chance And Coincidence As The Mode Of Expression Of Fate1382 Words   |  6 PagesLermontov’s usage of chance and coincidence as the mode of expression of fate can be seen explicitly in â€Å"Princess Mary† and â€Å"The Fatalist,† both short stories from Pechorin’s journal. â€Å"Princess Mary† retells the story of the time that Pechorin spent in the town of Pyatigorsk, a spa town located in the Caucases. In Pyatigorsk, Pechorin encounters an old acquaintance of his, Grushnitsky, who Pechorin secretly dislikes despite his veil of friendship. Also present in the town are Princess LigovskayaRead MoreEssay about Discusses the Reliability of Specific Narrators1777 Words   |  8 Pagesuse has on a readers view of reliability. The novels Heart of Darkness By Joseph Conrad and A Hero of Our Time By Mikhail Lermontov both contain more than one narrator. Heart of Darkness has two narrators, an anonymous passenger on a pleasure ship who listens to Marlows story and Marlow himself. The first narrator speaks in the first person plural on behalf of four other passengers who are listening to Marlows tale. Marlow also speaks in the first person. A Hero of Our Time has three narrators:Read MoreGender Roles Of Anton Chekhov s Works2015 Words   |  9 Pagesforced into disreputable careers to support their family. In Mikhail Lermontov’s novel A Hero of our Time, Pechorin helps Azamat steal Karagyoz, Kazbich’s horse, in exchange for Bela. In Pechorin’s view, Bela is seen as a material possession whom he married to try to find happiness, but she only brings him temporary pleasure. Women were regarded as inferior to men. Men would satisfy their poshlust by â€Å"collecting† women through sexual encounters, or they would satisfy their poshlust by â€Å"owning† the