The Butcher and His Fiend Like Queen in William...

The Butcher and his Fiend like Queen in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth Introduction At the end of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Malcolm refers to Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as: This dead like butcher and his fiend like queen, when he was crowned as new king of Scotland. In Malcolm’s eyes, the Macbeths are just that, cruel murderers who stole away the throne from him and his father. A butcher can be described as someone who kills, or have people killed unnecessarily or brutally. A fiend can be defined as a very cruel person, or one who causes trouble and annoyance. Macbeth is a butcher and Lady Macbeth his fiend-like queen, because of greed he had taken the lives of many people even close friends of him, and she manipulates him into†¦show more content†¦Macbeth soon realizes that he cannot stop at just killing Duncan. He understands that the one person who is most likely to threaten his position as King is Banquo. This is because he was present when the strange sisters gave Macbeth their prophecy, and can guess that Macbeth is guilty of murderin g the King. Macbeth murdered his best friend, Banquo, for two different reasons. The witches’ predictions, that Banquo’s son is to become king, and the fear about Banquo’s knowledge of his dirty crime. Macbeth assigns the three murderers to kill both Banquo and his son Fleance. | â€Å"Fleance his son, that keeps him company, Whose absence is no less material to me Than is his fathers, must embrace the fate Of that dark hour.† (3, 1) | Banquo was Macbeth’s best friend and had done nothing wrong; therefore must this act be the most butcher-like from Macbeth’s side. Macbeth slaughtered Lady Macduff and her son, due to the predictions made by the witches. Another example of Macbeth being a butcher is when he hires the murderers to kill the family of Macduff, just in order to cause him pain. | â€Å"The castle of Macduff I will surprise; Seize upon Fife; give to the edge o the sword His wife, his babes, and all unfortunate souls† (4, 1) | To murder innocent children and their mother is an exceptionally brutal act. Conclusion â€Å"The butcher and his Fiend like queen† as Malcolm refers to Macbeths in the end of the play, isShow MoreRelated Butcher and His Fiend Like Queen in William Shakespeares Macbeth1034 Words   |  5 PagesButcher and His Fiend Like Queen in William Shakespeares Macbeth I do agree with this judgement of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, but only in some aspects of the play by William Shakespeare. There are many arguments for this judgement; these will be discussed in this essay. In act one scene two Macbeth is portrayed as a heartless, merciless and brutal warrior. We get this impression of Macbeth from the report that is given to King Duncan by the captain; For brave MacbethRead MoreMacbeth and Lady Macbeth as A Dead Butcher and His Fiend-like Queen in William Shakespeares Macbeth2137 Words   |  9 PagesMacbeth and Lady Macbeth as A Dead Butcher and His Fiend-like Queen in William Shakespeares Macbeth Macbeth is one of Shakespeares four famous tragedies. It was written in 1605-1606, at the peak of Shakespeares career; and was chosen to accolade the new King James I of England, who had been James VI of Scotland. He had a fascination with witchcraft and the supernatural, so the play Macbeth complimented his passion. Shakespeare is famed for his use of the English languageRead MoreWilliam Shakespeares Macbeth Essay757 Words   |  4 PagesWilliam Shakespeares Macbeth Macbeth was a â€Å"butcher†, however he became that way as a result of Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth was a fiend-like queen whose evilness declined after the murders. In the end of the play, however, Macbeth’s transformation was complete and he was a butcher. Main Body Topic 1 ================= Macbeth’s transition from good to evil by Lady Macbeth:  · Ambition was his only reason for killing the king – â€Å"I have no spur To prickRead More Macbeth Is A Butcher And Lady Macbeth Is A Fiend-like Queen Essay1487 Words   |  6 Pages In Shakespeare’s tragedy Macbeth, the following statement can be applied, â€Å"Macbeth is a butcher and Lady Macbeth is a fiend-like queen.† This is a true statement as many occurrences involving Macbeth and Lady Macbeth portray them in this way. A butcher can be defined as someone who kills or has people killed needlessly or brutally. The term butcher used in this way describes Macbeth to some extent. During the play, Macbeth is involved in the murder of many people, including King Duncan, Banquo,Read MoreMacbeth Is a Butcher and Lady Macbeth Is a Fiend-Like Queen1561 Words   |  7 PagesIn Shakespeares tragedy Macbeth, the following statement can be applied, Macbeth is a butcher and Lady Macbeth is a fiend-like queen. This is a true statement as many occurrences involving Macbeth and Lady Macbeth portray them in this way. A butcher can be defined as som eone who kills or has people killed needlessly or brutally. The term butcher used in this way describes Macbeth to some extent. During the play, Macbeth is involved in the murder of many people, including King Duncan, Banquo, andRead MoreThe Presence of Ambition within MacBeth by William Shakespeare1085 Words   |  5 Pageswithin MacBeth by William Shakespeare Ambition is a quality within every human, however it sometimes drives people to partake in totally unnatural actions. As illustrated in William Shakespeares Macbeth, some forms of ambition can push people into becoming a person very sinister and evil. The ambition which Macbeth and Lady Macbeth encounter within Shakespeares play not only drives them to become ruthless killers, but is the cause of the two characters meeting their demise. Macbeth andRead MoreThe Start of Evil: Lady Macbeth by William Shakespeare1009 Words   |  5 PagesThe Start of Evil Macbeth is a play written by William Shakespeare in the 1600 century. It is one of Shakespeare’s most well known tragedies, and continues to be studied to this day. It is a dark and gloomy play, as the main character, Macbeth, gets a taste for evil and kills the king of Scotland, King Duncan, in order to become king himself. After this moment there is a rapid increase of evil in him, as he starts to kill more and more people who upset him or are a threat to the throne. One ofRead MoreShakespeare s Macbeth : Importance Of Secondary Characters1374 Words   |  6 PagesMacbeth: Importance of Secondary Characters Dramatic literature during the Elizabethan era included the illustrious works of the remarkable William Shakespeare. As Shakespeare composes his theatric spectacles, he brings the characters to life. Shakespeare’s engrossing composition of Macbeth, exhaustively, displays the essentiality of including secondary characters in the play. Macbeth can articulately stage the crucial events in the play due to the minor characters, and their ability to exhibitRead MoreLove, Murder, and Jealousy in Shakespeares Macbeth and Brownings My Last Duchess and The Laboratory2051 Words   |  8 Pagesjealousy in Macbeth, My Last Duchess and The Laboratory? This essay will look at ways William Shakespeare (1564-1616, English actor and playwright) and Robert Browning (1812-1889, English poet and playwright) consider love, murder and jealousy in the play Macbeth and the poems, My Last Duchess and The Laboratory. When comparing these themes it is of interest to consider their historical context and setting. Macbeth was first performed in 1611 and is considered to be one of Shakespeare’s darkest andRead MoreTheme of Fair is Foul in William Shakespeares Macbeth Essay2104 Words   |  9 PagesTheme of Fair is Foul in William Shakespeares Macbeth Fair is Foul is the major theme in Macbeth and is present throughout the play in both the characters and the events. Fair is Foul refers to the contrast of good and evil in the play, since Macbeth commits many evil murders for what seem to be good reasons. There are several false and secretive characters, such as the Witches, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, because of the contradiction of good and evil. Therefore the

Corporate Social Responsibility - Hilton - 3197 Words

Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate social responsibility (CSR, also called corporate conscience, corporate citizenship, social performance, or sustainable responsible business/ Responsible Business) is a form of corporate self- regulation integrated into a business model. CSR policy functions as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby a business monitors and ensures its active compliance with the spirit of the law, ethical standards, and international norms. CSR is a process with the aim to embrace responsibility for the companys actions and encourage a positive impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere who may†¦show more content†¦in developing economies); projects that support sustainable economic growth by increasing opportunities for emerging local businesses to succeed in the global value chain; disaster preparation and resiliency; critical services including housing and hunger/food insecuri ty; †¢ Culture: includes education programs that foster cultural heritage, preservation and restoration of historic or cultural monuments; projects that bridge diverse cultures and foster inclusiveness and diplomacy; support for local sourcing and goods; †¢ Sustainability: includes projects that assist in the protection, conservation and restoration of natural resources and habitats; projects that educate and inform the public about sustainability; support for sustainable sourcing and purchasing. Unsolicited Requests for Funding: Given their focus areas, in general they do not accept unsolicited funding requests and prefer to invite requests for proposals that contribute to their strategic program areas. It will be the responsibility of the Corporate Responsibility team to invite such requests and these requests will be reviewed and evaluated by a Contributions Review Committee under the supervision of the Corporate Responsibility team. Opportunities At Hilton Worldwide,Show MoreRelatedCorporate Social Responsibility : Csr Essay1064 Words   |  5 Pages â€Æ' Table of Content Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Understanding the Importance of CSR 4 Corporate Social Responsibility Audit 6 Findings 6 Conclusion 7 Recommendations 7 Reference List 8 Executive Summary After investigating the current situation, I found that the poor working conditions and underpayment reduce loyalty and employees’ satisfaction, employees feeling pressure with high workload and poor working conditions, substandard waste disposal methods causedRead MoreMore Friendliness Administration Positions Are Being Taken By Alumni Of Neighborliness Administration1528 Words   |  7 Pagesdoubt of enormous business. Corporate social obligation obliges associations to exhibit capable business lead that does no mischief in the commercial center, in the work environment, in the group they work in, and to the regular habitat (Roberts, 2007). The activities of business effect the nearby, national, and worldwide group, so organizations have an obligation to guarantee that the effect is sure (Paton, 2007). What is CSR? Corporate Social Responsibility includes making business progressRead MoreCorporate Social Responsibilities Essay1603 Words   |  7 PagesOn September 13, 1970, Milton Friedman wrote and article, Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. One of Milton’s theories suggested that the only legitimate incentive for a corporation to exist is to maximize its profits with its shareholders. As companies progress over time, so does the reason for the company existence. â€Å"What makes a stake holder?† Isabel Hilton (GE Stakeholders 2009) â€Å"What makes a stake holder? If you take a broad view of business then almost anyone whoRead MoreDevelopment of Triple Bottom Line Reporting and how this will Impact Financial Reporting and the Conceptual Framework2493 Words   |  10 PagesProfit seeking firms will not spend any dollar for non-value adding processing. (Smith, Thorne and Hilton, 2006) However, even with the lack of regulation, many organisations voluntary publicly release information about their social and environmental performance. (Deegan, 2009) According to Richard (1993) finding, investors intent to choose the company investing whether it demonstrates that is a market leadership or offer above average growth or bring in strong management. However, there are fewRead MoreCreating A Diverse And Inclusive Work Environment992 Words   |  4 Pages 2016). Diversity-Leaders need to know that they have to build accountability into their systems with regard to their managers taking responsibility for creating a diverse and inclusive work environment. Diversity initiatives can have important and interesting social justice benefits, but the real reason leaders pursue diversity programs is for innovation. Hilton Worldwide has any hotels and resorts across the globe with many background and variety of culture, and also has many guest travelling ofRead MoreHilton Hotel1075 Words   |  5 PagesHilton’s suppliers The touches that make Hilton Worldwide. Their supply management professionals in corporate offices and their six regional offices negotiate and implement contracts and agreements with suppliers of products and services in three key areas – Food amp; Beverage (Famp;B), Guest Rooms and Public Space, and Property Operations ------------------------------------------------- Food amp; Beverage Hilton Supply Management works closely with national and regional food and beverageRead MoreTransformation Is Run By Ceo Carole Anne Hilton1551 Words   |  7 Pagesand the social and economic capacity among First Nations communities. Their entire development and business goal is to establish governing structures, managing systems, and business development for First Nations people in order to establish a bright and structured future. Transformation is run by CEO Carole Anne Hilton who is driven by her ancestry and her passion to help struggling people. Hilton built the company off of the foundation of social and economic needs. Conventionally, Hilton runs herRead MoreMy Internship At The Hilton1130 Words   |  5 PagesDuring my internship at the Hilton, I have discovered hands on experience in the field I desire to have a degree in and hopefully land a job in after graduation. The amount of information I gathered and retained from this time frame in unimaginable. I thoroughly have enjoyed my stay at this hotel. The staff has been nothing but friendly and understanding. Everyone is willing to assist and direct me to the accurate direction to following proper procedures. Personally, if I could stay longer then IRead MoreInternational And Domestic Hospitality Companies1180 Words   |  5 Pagesimplementing eco-friendly initiatives is Hilton Worldwide. Hilton Worldwide is one of the largest global hospitality companies today, consisting of more than 4,500 hotels in 97 countries. Hilton’s history dates back nearly 100 years, and they continue to be one of the fastest growing companies in the hospitality industry. Part of the reason Hilton Worldwide continues to grow is their commitment to corporate social and environmental responsibility. Hilton Worldwide takes a comprehensive approachRead MoreIndividual Assessment Cover Sheet / Plagiarism Declaration Form8448 Words   |  34 Pages9 SERVICE: 9 INVESTIGATE THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA: 9 RECOMMENDATION: 10 TOPIC 6 - BARS 10 BARS: 11 .DAN MURPHY’S 11 TOP SELLERS: 11 CLIENT CATEGORY: 12 BEST PROMOTION 12 EFFECTS OF CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL ON HEALTH 12 SURVEY 2013 12 TOPIC 7 – MICE: MEETINGS, INCENTIVES, CONVENTIONS, AND EXHIBITIONS 13 MICE IN SYDNEY 13 HILTON HOTEL 13 FOUR POINTS BY SHERATON HOTEL 13 PARK HYATT SYDNEY 13 COMPETITION ANALYSIS: 14 COMPARISON 15 TOPIC 8 - CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE GLOBAL HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY

Doing the Right Thing free essay sample

The Runaway Trolley Suppose you are the driver of a trolley car hurtling down the track at sixty miles an hour. Up ahead you see ve workers standing on the track, tools in hand. You try to stop, but you can’t. The brakes don’t work. You feel desperate, because you know that if you crash into these ve workers, they will all die. (Let’s assume you know that for sure. ) Suddenly, you notice a side track, o to the right. There is a worker on that track, too, but only one. You realize that you can turn the trolley car onto the side track, killing the one worker, but sparing the ve. What should you do? Most people would say, â€Å"Turn! Tragic though it is to kill one innocent person, it’s even worse to kill ve. † Sacri cing one life in order to save ve does seem the right thing to do. Now consider another version of the trolley story. This time, you are not the driver but an onlooker, standing on a bridge overlooking the track. (This time, there is no side track. Down the track comes a trolley, and at the end of the track are ve workers. Once again, the brakes don’t work. The trolley is about to crash into the ve workers. You feel helpless to avert this disaster—until you notice, standing next to you on the bridge, a very heavy man. You could push him o the 22 JUSTICE bridge, onto the track, into the path of the oncoming trolley. He would die, but the ve workers would be saved. (You consider jumping onto the track yourself, but realize you are too small to stop the trolley. ) Would pushing the heavy man onto the track be the right thing to do? Most people would say, â€Å"Of course not. It would be terribly wrong to push the man onto the track. † Pushing someone o a bridge to a certain death does seem an awful thing to do, even if it saves ve innocent lives. But this raises a moral puzzle:Why does the principle that seems right in the rst case—sacri ce one life to save ve—seem wrong in the second? If, as our reaction to the rst case suggests, numbers count—if it is better to save ve lives than one—then why shouldn’t we apply this principle in the second case, and push? It does seem cruel to push a man to his death, even for a good cause. But is it any less cruel to kill a man by crashing into him with a trolley car? Perhaps the reason it is wrong to push is that doing so uses the man on the bridge against his will. He didn’t choose to be involved, after all. He was just standing there. But the same could be said of the person working on the side track. He didn’t choose to be involved, either. He was just doing his job, not volunteering to sacri ce his life in the event of a runaway trolley. It might be argued that railway workers willingly incur a risk that bystanders do not. But let’s assume that being willing to die in an emergency to save other people’s lives is not part of the job description, and that the worker has no more consented to give his life than the bystander on the bridge has consented to give his. Maybe the moral di erence lies not in the e ect on the victims— both wind up dead—but in the intention of the person making the decision. As the driver of the trolley, you might defend your choice to divert the trolley by pointing out that you didn’t intend the death of the worker on the side track, foreseeable though it was; your purpose would still have been achieved if, by a great stroke of luck, the ve workers were spared and the sixth also managed to survive. DOING THE RIGHT THING 23 But the same is true in the pushing case. The death of the man you push o the bridge is not essential to your purpose. All he needs to do is block the trolley; if he can do so and somehow survive, you would be delighted. Or perhaps, on re ection, the two cases should be governed by the same principle. Both involve a deliberate choice to take the life of one innocent person in order to prevent an even greater loss of life. Perhaps your reluctance to push the man o the bridge is mere squeamishness, a hesitation you should overcome. Pushing a man to his death with your bare hands does seem more cruel than turning the steering wheel of a trolley. But doing the right thing is not always easy. We can test this idea by altering the story slightly. Suppose you, as the onlooker, could cause the large man standing next to you to fall onto the track without pushing him; imagine he is standing on a trap door that you could open by turning a steering wheel. No pushing, same result. Would that make it the right thing to do? Or is it still morally worse than for you, as the trolley driver, to turn onto the side track? It is not easy to explain the moral di erence between these cases— why turning the trolley seems right, but pushing the man o the bridge seems wrong. But notice the pressure we feel to reason our way to a convincing distinction between them—and if we cannot, to reconsider our judgment about the right thing to do in each case. We sometimes think of moral reasoning as a way of persuading other people. But it is also a way of sorting out our own moral convictions, of guring out what we believe and why. Some moral dilemmas arise from con icting moral principles. For example, one principle that comes into play in the trolley story says we should save as many lives as possible, but another says it is wrong to kill an innocent person, even for a good cause. Confronted with a situation in which saving a number of lives depends on killing an innocent person, we face a moral quandary. We must try to gure out which principle has greater weight, or is more appropriate under the circumstances. 24 JUSTICE Other moral dilemmas arise because we are uncertain how events will unfold. Hypothetical examples such as the trolley story remove the uncertainty that hangs over the choices we confront in real life. They assume we know for sure how many will die if we don’t turn— or don’t push. This makes such stories imperfect guides to action. But it also makes them useful devices for moral analysis. By setting aside contingencies—â€Å"What if the workers noticed the trolley and jumped aside in time? †Ã¢â‚¬â€hypothetical examples help us to isolate the moral principles at stake and examine their force. The Afghan Goatherds Consider now an actual moral dilemma, similar in some ways to the fanciful tale of the runaway trolley, but complicated by uncertainty about how things will turn out: In June 2005, a special forces team made up of Petty O cer Marcus Luttrell and three other U. S. Navy SEALs set out on a secret reconnaissance mission in Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border, in search of a Taliban leader, a close associate of Osama bin Laden. 7 According to intelligence reports, their target commanded 140 to 150 heavily armed ghters and was staying in a village in the forbidding mountainous region. Shortly after the special forces team took up a position on a mountain ridge overlooking the village, two Afghan farmers with about a hundred bleating goats happened u pon them. With them was a boy about fourteen years old. The Afghans were unarmed. The American soldiers trained their ri es on them, motioned for them to sit on the ground, and then debated what to do about them. On the one hand, the goatherds appeared to be unarmed civilians. On the other hand, letting them go would run the risk that they would inform the Taliban of the presence of the U. S. soldiers. As the four soldiers contemplated their options, they realized that they didn’t have any rope, so tying up the Afghans to allow time to nd a new hideout was not feasible. The only choice was to kill them or let them go free. One of Luttrell’s comrades argued for killing the goatherds: â€Å"We’re on active duty behind enemy lines, sent here by our senior commanders. We have a right to do everything we can to save our own lives. The military decision is obvious. To turn them loose would be wrong. †38 Luttrell was torn. â€Å"In my soul, I knew he was right,† he wrote in retrospect. â€Å"We could not possibly turn them loose. But my trouble is, I have another soul. My Christian soul. And it was crowding in on me. Something kept whispering in the back of my mind, it would be wrong to execute these unarmed men in cold blood. †39 Luttrell didn’t say what he meant by his Christian soul, but in the end, his conscience didn’t allow him to kill the goatherds. He cast the deciding vote to release them. (One of his three comrades had abstained. ) It was a vote he came to regret. About an hour and a half after they released the goatherds, the four soldiers found themselves surrounded by eighty to a hundred Taliban ghters armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. In the erce re ght that followed, all three of Luttrell’s comrades were killed. The Taliban ghters also shot down a U. S. helicopter that sought to rescue the SEAL unit, killing all sixteen soldiers on board. Luttrell, severely injured, managed to survive by falling down the mountainside and crawling seven miles to a Pashtun village, whose residents protected him from the Taliban until he was rescued. In retrospect, Luttrell condemned his own vote not to kill the goatherds. â€Å"It was the stupidest, most southern-fried, lamebrained decision I ever made in my life,† he wrote in a book about the experience. â€Å"I must have been out of my mind. I had actually cast a vote which I knew could sign our death warrant. . . . At least, that’s how I look back on those moments now. . . The deciding vote was mine, and it will haunt me till they rest me in an East Texas grave. † 40 Part of what made the soldiers’ dilemma so di cult was uncertainty about what would happen if they released the Afghans. Would 26 JUSTICE they simply go on their way, or would they alert the Taliban? But suppose Luttrell knew that freeing the goatherds would lead to a devastating battle result ing in the loss of his comrades, nineteen American deaths, injury to himself, and the failure of his mission? Would he have decided di erently? For Luttrell, looking back, the answer is clear: he should have killed the goatherds. Given the disaster that followed, it is hard to disagree. From the standpoint of numbers, Luttrell’s choice is similar to the trolley case. Killing the three Afghans would have saved the lives of his three comrades and the sixteen U. S. troops who tried to rescue them. But which version of the trolley story does it resemble? Would killing the goatherds be more like turning the trolley or pushing the man o the bridge? The fact that Luttrell anticipated the danger and still could not bring himself to kill unarmed civilians in cold blood suggests it may be closer to the pushing case. And yet the case for killing the goatherds seems somehow stronger than the case for pushing the man o the bridge. This may be because we suspect that—given the outcome—they were not innocent bystanders, but Taliban sympathizers. Consider an analogy: If we had reason to believe that the man on the bridge was responsible for disabling the brakes of the trolley in hopes of killing the workers on the track (let’s say they were his enemies), the moral argument for pushing him onto the track would begin to look stronger. We would still need to know who his enemies were, and why he wanted to kill them. If we learned that the workers on the track were members of the French resistance and the heavy man on the bridge a Nazi who had sought to kill them by disabling the trolley, the case for pushing him to save them would become morally compelling. It is possible, of course, that the Afghan goatherds were not Taliban sympathizers, but neutrals in the con ict, or even Taliban opponents, who were forced by the Taliban to reveal the presence of the American troops. Suppose Luttrell and his comrades knew for certain that the goatherds meant them no harm, but would be tortured by the Taliban DOING THE RIGHT THING 27 o reveal their location. The Americans might have killed the goatherds to protect their mission and themselves. But the decision to do so would have been more wrenching (and morally more questionable) than if they knew the goatherds to be pro-Taliban spies. Moral Dilemmas Few of us face choices as fateful as those that confronted the soldiers on the mountain or the witness to the runaway trolley. But wrestling with their dilemmas sheds light on the way moral argument can proceed, in our personal lives and in the public square. Life in democratic societies is rife with disagreement about right and wrong, justice and injustice. Some people favor abortion rights, and others consider abortion to be murder. Some believe fairness requires taxing the rich to help the poor, while others believe it is unfair to tax away money people have earned through their own e orts. Some defend a rmative action in college admissions as a way of righting past wrongs, whereas others consider it an unfair form of reverse discrimination against people who deserve admission on their merits. Some people reject the torture of terror suspects as a moral abomination unworthy of a free society, while others defend it as a last resort to prevent a terrorist attack. Elections are won and lost on these disagreements. The so-called culture wars are fought over them. Given the passion and intensity with which we debate moral questions in public life, we might be tempted to think that our moral convictions are xed once and for all, by upbringing or faith, beyond the reach of reason. But if this were true, moral persuasion would be inconceivable, and what we take to be public debate about justice and rights would be nothing more than a volley of dogmatic assertions, an ideological food ght. At its worst, our politics comes close to this condition. But it need not be this way. Sometimes, an argument can change our minds.   How, then, can we reason our way through the contested terrain of justice and injustice, equality and inequality, individual rights and the common good? This book tries to answer that question. One way to begin is to notice how moral re ection emerges naturally from an encounter with a hard moral question. We start with an opinion, or a conviction, about the right thing to do: â€Å"Turn the trolley onto the side track. Then we re ect on the reason for our conviction, and seek out the principle on which it is based: â€Å"Better to sacri ce one life to avoid the death of many. † Then, confronted with a situation that confounds the principle, we are pitched into confusion: â€Å"I thought it was always right to save as many lives as possible, and yet it seems wrong to push the man o the bridge (or to kill the unarmed goatherds). † Feeli ng the force of that confusion, and the pressure to sort it out, is the impulse to philosophy. Confronted with this tension, we may revise our judgment about the right thing to do, or rethink the principle we initially espoused. As we encounter new situations, we move back and forth between our judgments and our principles, revising each in light of the other. This turning of mind, from the world of action to the realm of reasons and back again, is what moral re ection consists in. This way of conceiving moral argument, as a dialectic between our judgments about particular situations and the principles we a rm on re ection, has a long tradition. It goes back to the dialogues of Socrates and the moral philosophy of Aristotle. But notwithstanding its ancient lineage, it is open to the following challenge: If moral re ection consists in seeking a t between the judgments we make and the principles we a rm, how can such re ection lead us to justice, or moral truth? Even if we succeed, over a lifetime, in bringing our moral intuitions and principled commitments into alignment, what con dence can we have that the result is anything more than a self-consistent skein of prejudice? The answer is that moral re ection is not a solitary pursuit but a public endeavor. It requires an interlocutor—a friend, a neighbor, a DOING THE RIGHT THING 29 comrade, a fellow citizen. Sometimes the interlocutor can be imagined rather than real, as when we argue with ourselves. But we cannot discover the meaning of justice or the best way to live through introspection alone. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates compares ordinary citizens to a group of prisoners con ned in a cave. All they ever see is the play of shadows on the wall, a re ection of objects they can never apprehend. Only the philosopher, in this account, is able to ascend from the cave to the bright light of day, where he sees things as they really are. Socrates suggests that, having glimpsed the sun, only the philosopher is t to rule the cave dwellers, if he can somehow be coaxed back into the darkness where they live. Plato’s point is that to grasp the meaning of justice and the nature of the good life, we must rise above the prejudices and routines of everyday life. He is right, I think, but only in part. The claims of the cave must be given their due. If moral re ection is dialectical—if it moves back and forth between the judgments we make in concrete situations and the principles that inform those judgments—it needs opinions and convictions, however partial and untutored, as ground and grist. A philosophy untouched by the shadows on the wall can only yield a sterile utopia. When moral re ection turns political, when it asks what laws should govern our collective life, it needs some engagement with the tumult of the city, with the arguments and incidents that roil the public mind. Debates over bailouts and price gouging, income inequality and a rmative action, military ser vice and same-sex marriage, are the stu of political philosophy. They prompt us to articulate and justify our moral and political convictions, not only among family and friends but also in the demanding company of our fellow citizens. More demanding still is the company of political philosophers, ancient and modern, who thought through, in sometimes radical and surprising ways, the ideas that animate civic life—justice and rights, obligation and consent, honor and virtue, morality and law. Aristotle, 30 JUSTICE Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and John Rawls all gure in these pages. But their order of appearance is not chronological. This book is not a history of ideas, but a journey in moral and political re ection. Its goal is not to show who in uenced whom in the history of political thought, but to invite readers to subject their own views about justice to critical examination—to gure out what they think, and why.