Flannery Oconnor Essays - Flannery OConnor, , Term Papers

Flannery O'connor Flannery O'Connor and the Relationship Between Two of Her Stories Author, Flannery O'Connor was born Mary Flannery O'Connor on March 25, 1925 in Savannah, Georgia, as the only child to Edward F. O'Connor, Jr., and Regina (Cline) O'Connor. Later in 1941, Flannery O'Connor's father dies of lupus while O'Connor is in Milledgeville, Ga. After her father's death, O'Connor rarely speaks of him and continues to be active in school projects such as drawing, reading, writing, and playing instraments. Further, in the summer of 1942, O'Connor graduates and enters Georgia State College for Women as a sociology and English major. Moreover, O'Connor took on the name Flannery O'Connor, dropping Mary from her signature. When O'Connor graduates from college, she leaves for Iowa City and applies for several college teaching positions while attending the University of Iowa. Thus, she receives her Masters of Fine Arts in 1947. Although her first story, ?The Geranium? was publised in Accent, during the summer of 1946, it was only the beginning of many of her works to b e published. Like her father, O'Connor was living with lupus and her first major attack came in December, 1950. However, O'Connor did not allow the disease to keep her from writing and getting her works published. In fact, she got her nineth story , ?A Good Man Is Hard to Find? published. Also, O'Connor has won many prizes and awards with her writings over the years. For instance, she was named the Honorary Doctor of Letters by institutions, was the first prize of the O. Henry award in 1957 and 1963 and had previously won second in 1954 and 1955. Moreover, O'Connor died on August 3, 1964 I a Milledgeville hospital. Nevertheless, her stories continued to reign as award winners and are still chosen often to be read by college instructors and their students. ?A Good Man Is Hard to Find? and ?Good Country People? are two of many short stories by Flannery O'Connor. In addition, the two stories enfold a mystery ending in catastrophe. O'Connor uses plenty of irony or subtle kind of sarcasm in developing each of the stories. Coincidentally, ?A Good Man Is Hard To Find? and ?Good Country People? are both set in the South during the earlier years, when segregation was an issue and trust was not. ?A Good Man Is Hard to Find? and ?Good Country People? are two ironically twisted tales of how two different families lives are altered after trusting and being mislead by a stranger. In ?A Good Man Is Hard to Find,? O'Connor introduces a family whose lives ironically turn up side down while on a trip to Florida. For instance, before leaving on the trip, the grandmother (who wants to go to Tennessee in stead of Florida) tells her son, Bailey, about the newspaper article. Thus, the article states that a prisoner escapes to Florida and calls himself the misfit. However, her son basically ignores her and they end up taking the trip to Florida regardless of the warning. Also, the grandmother takes her cat, Pitty Sing, along on the trip in order to prevent any mishaps by leaving her behind. In addition, the grandmother wears a pin so that if she dies in an accident anyone who finds her, knows that she is a woman. Moreover, she points out several different sights on her way to Florida. Most significantly, she says, ?Look at that graveyard (O'Connor 139)!? With a twist the family decides to take a detour on a dirt road in Georgia with the intentions of visiting an old plantation. Unfortunately, this frightens Pitty Sing and she springs onto Bailey's shoulder while he is driving. As a result, this causes an accident. ? The horrible thought that she [ the grandmother] was having before the accident was that the house she had remembered so vividly was not in Georgia but in Tennessee? ( 145). Minutes later, the grandmother flagged down a big black hearse-like car with three men inside. ?You're The Misfit? I recognized you at once,? says the grandmother to the older man (147) .? Nevertheless, the misfit kills the entire family. In ?Good Country People,? a second story by O'Connor, another family mistakes a trusted stranger and this

Compare Mill And Kants Ethical Theories; Which Makes A Better Societal

Compare Mill And Kants Ethical Theories; Which Makes A Better Societal Compare Mill and Kant's ethical theories; which makes a better societal order? John Stuart Mill (1808-73) believed in an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. There are many formulation of this theory. One such is, "Everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possibly balance of good over evil for everyone involved." However, good is a relative term. What is good? Utilitarians disagreed on this subject. Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows: According to the Greatest Happiness Principle ? The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments. Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own. Each person's happiness is equally important. Mill believed that a free act is not an undetermined act. It is determined by the unconstrained choice of the person performing the act. Either external or internal forces compel an unfree act. Mill also determined that every situation depends on how you address the situation and that you are only responsible for your feelings and actions. You decide how you feel about what you think you saw. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is. Kant described two types of common commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law." Therefore, before proceeding to act, you must decide what rule you would be following if you were to act, whether you are willing for that rule to be followed by everyone all over. If you are willing to universalize the act, it must be moral; if you are not, then the act is morally impermissible. Kant believed that the welfare of each individual should properly be regarded as an end in itself, as stated in the Formula of the End in Itself: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end. Kant believes that moral rules are exceptionless. Therefore, it is wrong to kill in all situations, even those of self-defense. This is belief comes from the Universal Law theory. Since we would never want murder to become a universal law, then it must be not moral in all situations. So which of the two theories would make a better societal order? That is a difficult question because both theories have "problems." For Kant it is described above, his rules are absolute. Killing could never be make universal, therefore it is wrong in each and every situation. There are never any extenuating circumstances, such