Papers have started coming in, which means I am confronted again with just how bad some students are at expressing their thoughts on paper. Some are so bad that they transcend the boundaries of lame and become awesome, even if only in that kitschy manner.
This is the best of the horrible writing that I have seen in a long time.
Deontology is favored because as a human being you favor what is right in your up bring not to say that any one up bring is better than another but that you are taught from a young age that killing anyone person is wrong. People that kill people should be brought to justice. Some say a life for a life would be the correct amount of punishment but others want the killer to rote in prison like a barbarian. Who are we to say that it right or wrong? With having a higher power in say our faith we honestly do not know. In deontology and consequentialism they were just probably two old loonies that had nothing better to do then arguer over the way that society lived. Now a good hundred year later we arguer over who has the better position to what we believe.
I’m fairly adamant in the beginning of the course that “who are we to say?” isn’t going to fly so when it appears in papers I’m not a happy camper. Talking about consequentialism and deontology as “two old loonies” would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Who are we to say what writing is good?
nice. this post was lacking in sarcasm.
I do what I can, because as a friend I favor what kind of bring my friends bring as taught from a child. I love this shit.
ACK! Unreadable! Dizzy . . . . need air . . . . feeling loony . . .