Compariing Three Versions of Chaucers Pardoners Tale :: Chaucer Pardoners Tale Canterbury Essays

Compariing Three Versions of Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale One of the interesting things about the works of Chaucer is the amount of difference one can find between the different manuscripts of his work. I thought it would be interesting to look at the difference between two manuscripts, using the transcriptions available in the Chaucer Society Specimens of all the Accessible Unprinted Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales. I found a copy that has comparative versions of the manuscripts assigned to us, taking a look at the Pardoner's Tale. While we have not looked at that tale in class, and given that it was the only sample I could find in the scattered volumes of the Specimens, I felt it would be interesting to look at them, especially compared to the Riverside edition we are reading in class. Beginning with the Riverside edition, the introduction to the Pardoner?s tale begins with ?Heere endeth the Phisiciens Tale? and ?The woordes of the Hoost to the Phisicien and the Pardoner.? (Benson, 193) These introductory words, as well as the closing words for the previous tale, are not present in the Bodleian text. One could surmise that the transcriber of the text felt these to be perfunctory and unecessary, and though the reproduction I have does not reproduce it, it?s possible that there could be some other dividing point to break off one tale and begin another. The Additional MS has a conjunctive phrase, though it is different than that presented in the Riverside edition. ?here ende the Maister of phisikes tales? and ?Here bigynneth the prologe of the reheytyng of our hoost.? (Specimens 91, 2) It is interesting to not the difference of terminology here. The physician is ?Phisicien? in the Riverside text, yet the ?Master of phisikes? in the Additional MS. One wonders why one i s preferred over the other, and which is the more authoritative version. With only these three texts assigned, it is not for this author to speculate, and again, with a small sample, there can easily be isolated differences. One of the most interesting things to note in these differing manuscripts, I?ve found, is the variance and change that even identical passages can take, separated into various edition. Much like modern English, when you ask several different people to write the same thing, you can get many different variations base on how they?re transcribed.

Kant and Euthanasia Essay

According to the Human Society of the United States, 2. 7 million animals are euthanized each year, yet human assisted euthanasia is not even legal in 46 states. Not only do animals not have to give consent to their deaths but it is legal in every single state. Even though the basis of Kantian ethics and Catholicism lie hundreds of years apart, they are almost identical when it comes to their views on some moral issues. In regards to euthanasia, Kant and Catholicism have different reasons, yet their views are the same in that they say euthanasia is wrong. To find whether or not Kant and Catholics agree or disagree, there must first be a consensus on whether euthanasia is the same as killing someone. As defined by Webster’s dictionary, to kill is to cause the death. Voluntary euthanasia, which is the only type that is present in the United States, must fit five characteristics in order for it to be legal. First, the patient must be suffering from a deadly illness. Second, the disease must be so developed that a cure for the said disease would not increase the chance of life. Furthermore, if the deathly ill person has unparalleled pain and even if saved, he or she would need life support for the remaining time. Moreover, and probably most importantly the person must wish and want to die. Finally, the person must not have the strength to kill themselves on their own. When these questions are cleared, the doctor may then give a series of drugs that first but the patient in a coma and then a painless death. The doctor is clearly causing the death of the patient; therefore, no matter how society looks at it, by definition, euthanasia is indeed an act of killing. No matter the circumstances surrounding the action, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, killing is always wrong. This matter can be settled with a literal translation and reading of the Bible. In Exodus Chapter 21 verse 23 it states, â€Å"You are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. † As anyone can see, the Catholics during the time that the bible was written agree that killing is wrong and has the gravest of consequences. Still today, Catholics share the same beliefs as it states in the Catechism â€Å"Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. † This is morally unacceptable because an act such as this goes against, â€Å"the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator† (CCC 2277). From these citations of the Catechism, Catholics can see that God does not give permission to use euthanasia not only because human dignity is lost, but also because it is a vice against the being who created the life itself. Kant, like Catholics would agree that no one should ever be killed strictly because killing is wrong. Kant would refer to the categorical imperatives when making his decision. â€Å"His first formulation of categorical imperative talks about man being a rational being; since he is a rational being, he has no right to formulate such a maxim like â€Å"if I am in a terrible condition, I have the right to take my life or reserve the right to the doctor or my family members†Ã¢â‚¬  (Odianosen 9). When talking about Kant, Odianosen clearly agrees and supports that the categorical imperatives point in the direction away from any sort of euthanasia. In this quote that Odianosen uses, he is stating that the rational part of humans shall not call for something as ridicules as euthanasia. Of course Catholics and Kant believe in stopping human euthanasia, but Kant’s peculiar reasoning behind this is quite different from a Catholic’s thought of not disrespecting God’s holy creations. In An Introduction to Catholic Ethics by Longtin and Peach, thoroughly explain that in Kantian ethics, one must follow the moral law for the sake of the moral law itself. This means that one must not use euthanasia not because it may be considered murder and not because it might disrespect God, but because euthanasia in itself is unethical. Since murder is also a universal law, people cannot simply use someone as a means to an end meaning that is euthanasia is wanted mainly because insurance money is given out more quickly. Indeed, although their reasoning may be different, overall Catholics and Kant would agree. During the Age of Enlightenment, Kant walked the earth and thought of what is right, and what is truly wrong. The first Catholics were born over one thousand years prior, and they created a doctrine of ethics in which some are still agreed upon today. Both agree, no matter how different their backgrounds were, that taking a life even if that life is suffering is never okay; however between the categorical imperative and God’s will, their reasons for doing so are worlds apart. In extensively researching this topic, and having my own opinions, I would have to disagree with both of them. I think that taking a life in these situations is the humane option for several reasons. Firstly, if a human being is undergoing large amounts of pain and will clearly end in imminent death, there is no use for him or her to go through such a stressful time if there is a quick and painless option. In addition, euthanasia may be the more economically sound option. Often, medical bill can be extremely expensive if great medical insurance is not possessed, and keeping that person alive for a small amount of time would put the entire family in a deep and maybe never ending economic plunder. Finally, and usually most importantly, it gives the family a sense of closer. No one wants to worry if their best friend, or favorite family will die today, tomorrow, next Friday, or in two months from now. Euthanasia provides the entire family to list all of their final goodbyes, stories, and regrets. Without a doubt, euthanasia is a clearly morally right in my mind even though many such as Kant and Catholics would argue otherwise. Works Cited â€Å"Common Questions about Animal Shelters : The Humane Society of the United States. † RSS. Humane Society of the United States, 3 May 2013. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. Longtin, Lucien F. , and Andrew J. Peach. An Introduction to Catholic Ethics. Washington, D. C.: National Catholic Educational Association, 2003. Print. New American Bible. New York: American Bible Society, 2010. Print. Odianosen, Peter. Immanuel Kant’s Moral Theory as a Response to Euthanasia. N. p. : University of Ibadan, n. d. Academia. edu. Web. 1 Dec. 2013. Patterson, R. F. New Webster’s Dictionary. Plantation, FL: Paradise, 1997. Print. Paul II, Pope John. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Web. 2 Dec. 2013. Young, Robert. â€Å"Voluntary Euthanasia. † Stanford University. Stanford University, 18 Apr. 1996. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

Ray Bradbury s Fahrenheit 451 - 2041 Words

Books have played an important role in society for thousands of years. Books give people the foundations of being able to set opinions, the foundations of education and the foundation of preferences and perspectives on historical events. But, books also create opinion and require thought which can lead to disagreements and an unpleasant society. In the book, â€Å"Fahrenheit 451†, the author, Ray Bradbury, explains a futuristic society where books have become such a burden and the government strives so much for a world without fault that they banned all books from society. They view books as a problem because they promote thought and higher level thinking skills which can lead to controversy between minority groups that have differentiating†¦show more content†¦When he came home from this first unplanned meeting he found his wife laying on her bed, unconscious, because of she overdosed on sleeping pills. But, emergency responders come to their house and performed an operation to bring Montag’s wife, Mildred back to perfect health. They get her back to perfect health by pumping new blood into her system, but this new blood makes Mildred forget everything that happened the night before. After this event he has more and more meetings with Clarisse and she starts to influence his personality by making him more and more dissatisfied with how society is run. Clarisse makes him realize that books are not a real problem in society and the government portrays this problem for a reason unknown by Montag. This belief becomes so influenced upon him by Clarisse that he even starts stealing books from houses he helps burn down. Clarisse suddenly disappears making the reader infer she died. This combined with his very little knowledge and curiosity of books caused him to have psychological illnesses that refrained him from going to work and let him stay home and read the books that have been banned for the entirety of his life. But, Montag’s cha nge of behavior and his constant missing of work causes his boss, captain beatty, to become