Please check w/ my essay

nontraditional
Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:11:36 +0000

“All the things happen.”
---------------> WHat I mean in this sentence is all the thing can happen. Anybody can be evil, anybody can be docile

In English, this would usually be phrased as, “Anything can happen.”

---------------> I didn’t choose Johnson because I didn’t know who he is. With Bush’s “leaving Iraqi citizen leaving in fear”, I demonstrate the “evil intent” of him (same as Nixon). I don’t know why you did not know why I wrote that (In my language that sentence could be understood, so maybe I’m wrong here)

Lyndon Johnson was the American president who first sent American troops to Viet Nam.

I think the sentence may be the result of a spelling error: “leaving Iraq’s citizens living in fear” makes sense in English.

My question is: do we measure who is evil based on what they intended to do, or based on what they did do?

For example, if a man takes a small child to the circus, hoping that the child will have a day of fun, and an animal gets loose and kills the child, was the man’s action evil? If the outcome of an act makes it evil, then the man’s action is evil. If the intended outcome of an act makes it evil, then the man’s action is not evil. Alternately, suppose a woman decides she wants to be a murderer, buys a gun, picks a man at random, and shoots him but doesn’t kill him. Suppose that the man hadn’t been paying attention and was about to walk into the path of a truck, which would certainly have resulted in his immediate death, but the one thing that stopped him was the would-be murderer’s act. Is the woman’s act evil? If we judge the act based on her intent, then it was evil; but if we judge it based on the outcome, we note that she has saved the man’s life, and so her shooting him was good.

You have two examples. In one, you focus on evil intent. In the other, you focus on an evil outcome. It’s a short essay and I wouldn’t expect you to be held responsible for this on the test itself. But it makes it a bit unclear what you think makes an act (or a person) evil: the intent to do evil, or the outcome of evil.

—> IQ and EQ I think necessary to demonstrate their leader skills and the abilities to handle work of a country. Perhaps I was wrong here to translate an acceptable idea in my language to English

Maybe.

—> I don’t understand what you mean here :“Until here, you’ve focused mainly on the idea that people with a lot of knowledge may not have a lot of virtue.”. I don’t remember mention it. But I wanted to say that everyone could be complacent, or could be kind. Therefore we cannot define one’s morality by looking into their job. Perhaps I went off on a tangent with the last sentence

Actually, I might go back and start bringing this idea in in the previous section: am I correct that Bruce Wayne himself is a rich and successful man? (I’m just going to confess here: I’ve seen some of the episodes of the old live-action TV show, and that’s about it.)

-----------> I don’t understand what you mean here, either

It was clear to me that you were saying that people’s intelligence, their knowledge, and their success in life don’t determine whether or not they are moral people. But all your examples are about well-educated successful people who do evil. At first I was saying that maybe you should include an example of someone isn’t well-educated and successful and/or doesn’t do evil.

But then it occurred to me that Bruce Wayne (Batman’s alter ego) is a rich and successful man, at least in the TV show I’ve seen. But he’s also a good man. So maybe you could just expand the Batman example to show that it includes successful men who do evil and successful men who do good.

Again, I’m not exactly sure what you mean in the last sentence, but I think the rest of this paragraph is great. It says exactly what you’ve been arguing for.

------------------> I based the last sentence upon the old adage" You cannot judge a book by his appearance". I was, perhaps, going off on tangent by using " book" but not “appearance” here. But I think even if I did you would not understand what I meant, either. Lol

The English version of that adage (or at least the American English version) is “You can’t judge a book by its cover.” I think I might have done better if you’d stuck “cover” in there. I hope so. Of course, I’d like to think I would have figured it out the way it was.

Thank you for your graciousness in responding to everyone.