What is Nature of Evil?

To define the nature of evil, it is complex, as in society certain people have different views/thoughts/opinions on the nature. In the 21st century, evil can is described as anything that society doesn’t expect and want. Thus, ‘evil’ is something that is viewed as negatively moral act. Evil is intended, as it consists of both Mens Rea, and Actus Reas, meaning that the action or deed has a motive behind it. Nevertheless, what is truly ‘evil’ in our world is already agreed upon.

Evil can be found applied mainly through novels, books and scripts whereas an author tries to deliver a message or moral to the audience. There are universal ‘evil’ that are viewed as morally bad and unacceptable, such as murder, rape, theft, genocide, and dishonesty. As you can see the examples given above, all need intent and a motive for their actions. For instance, the Sri Lankan government and its forces of army and navy are known of murdering, raping, committing genocide, robbing freedom and stealing privilege of survival from the minority of Tamils. Not only do they commit these actions, but they also tend to hide/restrict the facts and not allow any journalists and foreign aid helpers in these war zones, which ironically is in the Tamil populated area. In their evil nature government, in which they are being dishonest to themselves and for the international world’s eyes, causes the international world to believe that their actions is morally correct, thus encouraging them. Another instance is the infamous ‘BTK’ killer, Denis Rader, whom murdered countless amounts of individuals, but to make matters worse, also tortures them. These are clear examples of where crimes, with motive and intent, are considered universally ‘evil’ natured. Can a society or the World operate without any evil natured presence? It’s like the saying, ‘There is no Peace, without War’.

In novels, comics, and etc, evil nature is portrayed as dark, black. The society in which the themes of these books and comics takes place, evil appears where there are dark alleys, usually after evening, where the black sky starts taking over. Acts of evil are shown as robbery, murder against the citizens. In Dark Knight comic, you can see that the hero (good), Bruce Wayne, disguised as Batman, appears at the night time of Gotham City, where crime is highly likely to occur. Even here in Toronto, acts of evil prevail as the dark clouds rolls in. Most of the shooting, stabbing, gang related activities occur once the sun vanishes.

The nature of evil is described as unacceptable actions, negative moral actions, and the unwanted in society. Why do we still have people that are of nature of evil, in a world where we are progressing towards peace? Some say that we need evil, in order to balance out peace and good. Without evil, there would no need of cops, army, and other enforcement agents, but unfortunately the world still needs them and superhero's such as Barrak Obama and many more.

What is Nature of Good?

From the ancient ritually of religion, ethics, and philosophy, the phrase good and evil deprive from the meaning of location of objects, desires, and behaviours. With good and evil, one side would be considered morally positive (good), while the other side would be morally negative (evil). To define both good and evil are broad, had have a vast amount of meaning and definition. Thus, in our society good and evil differ throughout the region of this world, as different parts of the world have different aspects and perspective on determining the nature or good or evil.

Good can be considered as a person contributing and producing positive outcome for the society. Acts of good can be considered as someone giving back to the community or helping the society become prosperous, better, and healthy. A great example would be the founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates. With all the riches and wealth he possesses, he manages to give back a portion of his wealth through charity to the needed ones in society. But, is this act of good nature? Sure, but we would have to look at the other side and the full concept of his actions. Why would a rich, wealthy person, whom can control a state if he wanted to, help out the poor and needed? This is a guy that makes more money than the GDP of come countries. Some say to the nature of good, there are also motives behind it. In Bill Gates case, by him donating a portion his personal wealth or earning back to a charitable organization, he can receive a tax relief or tax credit. So are his kind hearted charitable donations, a nature of good, or is there a motive or perspective behind the curtains? Nevertheless he still contributed to a needy and good cause.

People like Martin Luther King, Mohandas Ghandi, Harriet Tubman, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, can be considered as the ones whom have the nature of good in their heart, thus producing and contributing positive outcomes towards society in their time. These people listed above have tired nevertheless to bring peace, freedom and liberty and defeat slavery in society. Even though these people, didn’t possess wealth like Bill Gates, with there own heart and soul, they fought and contributed for this peace, freedom, liberty that we have today. These people with there own actions that produced positive outcomes for society, can truly be said that there actions were nature of good. There motives were positive and they wanted to help other people, not because they can get an tax break, or recognition, they did it for the future scholars of the world. These future scholars are us, and we should appreciate the hard fought battles and obstacle these people, mentioned above have gone through.

In today’s society good and evil are already pre-decided. Meaning that whatever action you do, it will either produce a good deed or an evil. If your nature is good (positive) or evil (negative), in society, the consequences are already known, and society will reflect upon your decisions. Say, if a student cheats on a test, then in society that is known as evil or negative. At the same time, if the student came in continuously for help, days before the test, then it is the nature of good that the student came in, forfeiting cheating or getting a low mark on the test.

Is it subjective or a universal truth about what constitutes “good” and “evil”?

I believe it is subjective as to what constitutes as “good” and “evil”. Depending on the perspective your looking from an action can be classified as a good or evil. In society, if a kid steals a loaf of bread, then from people’s perspective they would consider this kid as evil or bad. If you viewed the kid from his background, and you find out that the kid have ill parents, whom are homeless. Would this act constitute as a good or evil?

There are many factors that make one evil or good. Depending on nature or nurture, it all influences you, and depending on how you are brought up or taught, many things can be considered evil, but for others in society, it can be seen as good. Religion, morals, and values mainly rely on the individual and how they interpret things. If a person doesn’t follow, what should be followed by there society, it may seem good for them, but from others perception this is seen as an evil or disgrace.

Therefore, when trying to constitute what is good or evil, a person must analyze the concept. Without understanding the background to a person act, one action may see as evil, but to the person committing the act, it can be constitute as a good deed/action. Although with all mankind, there are already the set morals, values in society. If you commit murder, or anything to harm a living thing, is already known to as an act of evil. Any charitable or good will, towards people, person and etc. is known as an act of good. So, with set evil and good, they are already pre-determined, so it also is universal truth.

Is it subjective or a universal truth about what constitutes “good” and “evil”?

I believe it is subjective as to what constitutes as “good” and “evil”. Depending on the perspective your looking from an action can be classified as a good or evil. In society, if a kid steals a loaf of bread, then from people’s perspective they would consider this kid as evil or bad. If you viewed the kid from his background, and you find out that the kid have ill parents, whom are homeless. Would this act constitute as a good or evil?

There are many factors that make one evil or good. Depending on nature or nurture, it all influences you, and depending on how you are brought up or taught, many things can be considered evil, but for others in society, it can be seen as good. Religion, morals, and values mainly rely on the individual and how they interpret things. If a person doesn’t follow, what should be followed by there society, it may seem good for them, but from others perception this is seen as an evil or disgrace.

Therefore, when trying to constitute what is good or evil, a person must analyze the concept. Without understanding the background to a person act, one action may see as evil, but to the person committing the act, it can be constitute as a good deed/action. Although with all mankind, there are already the set morals, values in society. If you commit murder, or anything to harm a living thing, is already known to as an act of evil. Any charitable or good will, towards people, person and etc. is known as an act of good. So, with set evil and good, they are already pre-determined, so it also is universal truth.

Persuasive Writing Samples: Adolescents and the Media (Informal Tone and Structure)

This informal toned persuasive writing seems more like a fact/information paper, rather than trying to persuade the reader or audience. It was dull and the author would have put in more emotion into his writing, which could have improved this dull writing.

The author, Victor C Strasburger, had materials that were relating to Australian research. He quoted extensively throughout this work, meaning that his work can be is legit and the information can be true and persuading. Comparing with the previous essays where the authors haven’t quoted their work, as many as Victor has, his work seems well researched. In the first paragraph, last sentence, you can see that he directly address the readers and audience by asking, “Why”. The style of this writing flowed, and with the sub-heading used, it makes it easier for the readers to understand that particular paragraph being talked about. The content compared with the previous samples, they were more essay written than this one. But, this piece I believe is better thought-out and better structured, with the use of sub-heading, which overall felt more like a report or research paper.

Overall, I don’t think this can be registered as a good example of an informal toned essay. If anyone follows this example, there work will seem more like a report, rather than trying to persuade your audience. Not saying that having plentiful information is bad, it bores the reader, and the reader or audience losses interest. The author could of used more rhetorical devices so that it can equal out the information, and not turn off the reader.

Persuasive Writing Samples: Debunking Media Violence

Travis Ryan, persuasive essay, on Debunking Media Violence is both rich and diverse. This glorified piece of writing is unexceptional perfect, as he masters the usage of rhetorical and literary techniques in his work, which overall creates the blend of professionalism and punctuality.

Travis Ryan kept a consistent formal tone throughout his persuasive writing essay. He brought up several points, which amazed me. He brings up Hollywood, which barely comes into the spotlight when talking or relating the consequences to violence. No one blames or points at Hollywood when talking about media violence, as Hollywood creates movies; where violence is shown to children, especially in their favourite action fighting movies. Thus, you can see and experience yourself that children are to re-in act the scenes from movies, which showcased their favourite superstar. Although, I would say that Professor Henry Jenkins used better and efficient diction, Travis Ryan can also be credited on his formal tone, and style for being scholarly and effective. He was able to stick with the content throughout the essay, by often relating the material to what he is trying to get across the impacts on media violence.

The mistake he made, was he that he included reader inclusions, by saying to the reader, “We, I, Our”. This makes it less effective, but at the same time, I think he uses reader inclusion, to get the audience or reader to get involved and get his points to them. A rhetorical device that caught my eyes was he mentioned, “Politicians are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people who are attacking the media.” This is mentioned as Senators in the U.S are trying to regulate the legislation for the media contents. This which then brings to the next problem, which the author uses all this researches, materials, and resources from the American studies.

The conclusion sounded dull, and the author could have used rhetorical devices or could have had a stronger conclusion to conclude his strong essay. Travis Ryan could have reiterated the point where the V-chips and rating system for games aren’t enough to stop media violence, which could of strengthen his overall essay and conclusion. Taken as a whole, I would say that this in general is an excellent example of a formal essay, although with revision and additional material, this has the potential to be superior as Hercules.

Persuasive Writing Samples: Media Violence - Informal Tone

The informal toned essay written by Henry Jenkins is a diverse and excellent example of an informal toned piece of work. He begins his work by using a logical fallacy, appeal to ridicule, emphasizing the Virginia Tech shooting, and relating it to how it doesn’t relate to media violence. He also gives statistics to prove his point. In general this persuasive writing example of an informal tone is very significant as it set the standards for future informal toned piece of writing, and acts like a skeleton for us to follow.

He used many statistics and examples to persuade and prove his points. There is an error in the first paragraph, where he says, “On average college students spend more time each playing that (than) reading recreationally, watching television, or going to the movies”. The word “that” should have been replaced by “than”, and the consequence of this, is that it made a bad impression of his work. People will think his writing is not professional and scholarly, and may feel that he’s just a normal citizen, not a professor, writing this opinion piece. But, later on with his rich use of tone, content, and style, he proved that it was just a small mistake, and which overall provided a well written informal toned essay. He proved that a small mistaken, shouldn’t allow a reader to underestimate the rest of the writing, and so should other reads and teachers in society.

The style of this persuasive writing flows as smoothly as ocean tides at night. His paragraphs follow as from one huge well informed paragraph, to a paragraph that is more opinion winged, shorter sentences, which then reiterate his points, from the previous information filled paragraph. He uses high dictions to improve and deliver his piece with passion, and scholarly. He doesn’t use any slang, street language or any colloquial words, even though this is an informal toned essay, thus proves that we don’t necessarily have to use slang or colloquial words in informal toned piece of writing.

Overall, this is a well written informal toned persuasive essay regarding the media violence. He clearly stated his posing points and reasoning to back up, how media violence does not evoke violence in real life. Henry Jenkins has successfully written an informal toned piece of writing that of which can be used as a good example for us to look back, review, help and give some ideas and feedback for us, when we write an informal toned writing.