The word monster, for many people, may bring up thoughts of vile and “scary” mythological creatures, while for some, a human may come to mind. Scholars have examined and modified the definition of a monster for centuries. Take the story of Frankenstein, for example. The creature created by Frankenstein is often remembered as the monster of the story, but various scholars have concluded the actual monster in the story was Frankenstein himself. This is due to his creation of said “monster” and his greed and hostility towards his creation. This example is a further indication of the fact that humans can be monsters, too (Swanepoel). A monster is not simply a scary mythological creature but a being that possesses the human qualities of brutality, selfishness, and oppression. In an essay on humanism, author Swanepoel defines an extreme perpetrator by three of the following culprits: murderous dictators, serial killers, and ideological killers. So, by this definition, Adolph Hitler is an extreme perpetrator, making him a monster.
By birth, Adolf Hitler, an Austrian rose to become a Nazi leader and was among the most despised figures in world history. Hitler, born on 20th April 1889, participated first world war, where he served as the chief architect after he was rose as the Nazi leader. Then after the battle, the harmony experienced in Germany enraged him, which made him spend the entire life trying to undo the peace that already had belittled his adopted home nation (Yugie). To solidify and sustain control, he employed fear and violence, notably among the Brownshirts. He is, therefore, one of the human beings that justifies that monster can as well be human. His anti-Semitic tactics resulted in the slaughter of millions of Jews in the Holocaust and other individuals against his policies. Therefore, he established his status as one of humankind’s most evil figures, which is equivalent to being a monster.
Ordered his soldiers to “never withdraw”
Hitler was a selfless leader who never considered the lives of his troops as equally important like his self-gain from the war. He always believed in his men facing the enemy despite being overpowered, and this was Hitler’s most significant blunder in Russia. When the Germans’ fortunes began to deteriorate over the first wintertime, He ordered his forces to “never, ever withdraw .”(Yugie) It is risky because allowing soldiers to be slaughtered before an opponent outnumbers them in numbers and/or weaponry makes no sense. Stalin was a supporter of this dubious theory, choosing to prioritize pride over the safety of his troops. This decision depicts that Hitler was a selfless or rather ruthless and inhumane leader. If Hitler had not possessed the monster personality, he would have considered it far more effective to retreat on period and counterattack efficiently at the right time. Besides, his inhumanity was depicted on the no surrender policy such that if generals questioned his choice to surrender, such as Eric von Manstein, they were dismissed of command.
Invasion of Soviet Union
During the Eastern Front war, Adolf Hitler committed numerous discrepancies during the invasion of the Soviet Union. The first was just assuming that conquering the Soviet Union would be simple. The second issue was the six-week postponement of Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi ruler’s choice to spare Mussolini’s troops throughout the Balkans. Similarly, the Nazis were unprepared to wage a protracted war because Hitler assumed that Russia might be defeated before the beginning of summer. Hitler was also depicted as a self-centered leader during the invasion of the Soviet Union, where He envied oil that the Soviet Union possessed and demanded the British surrender for peace (Yugie). He never believed in negotiations but rather believed that Britain would have no other option than to accept peace upon the fall Soviet Union. This was among the instances that Hitler would have applied other conflict resolutions techniques which could have fulfilled his wishes without harming others for his self-interest.
Declaration of war against the U.S.
As a German leader who was utterly self-centered and viewed things through his selfish viewpoint, Adolf Hitler declared war on the U.S., where his motivation to make such judgment seems to be self-destructive. This declaration stimulated the by making America, which was not involved in the European conflict (Yugie). This declaration was made in the aftermath of the “Japanese attack on the Hawaiian base at Pearl Harbor .”But why so? Hitler believed it would be beneficial to the German folk’s confidence.
Monsters often Categorize people into groups of “other.”
The non-Aryans in Germany were categorized as “other” as per Hitler’s perspective. He was supposed to consider all citizens as equally important and govern the nation as one. However, he termed non-Aryans as racially inferior (Bitesize). The Nazis punished persons they deemed to be of lower racial status. Hitler’s racial philosophy was predominantly anti-Semitic, but it also promoted prejudice towards the Blacks, who were also termed as other. Hitler then treated Jews as racial rivals, arresting, interning, and murdering them at will. Poles and other Slavs were considered inferior by the Nazis, who sentenced them to slavery, slave labor, and even death. Throughout Nazi camps, Jewish captives were subjected to the most heinous abuse, as “other.”
Lack of women working in factories
Besides, Hitler made his administration gender-biased, where women were oppressed, more so in the employment sector during his reign. Hitler felt that a woman’s responsibility was solely to be a mother and not to be employed outside in the factories, and this was since Hitler wanted these women to keep raising more Aryan kids as well as provide jobs for the jobless men(Bitesize). Monsters are always associated with the oppressive action of categorizing people under the gender model, and so was Hitler, suggesting his monster nature.
Resentment towards the Jews
Throughout the reign of Hitler, it was evident that he truly hated the Jews and considered that they had no place in Germany. Through “Mein Kampf” and other policies during his reign, he was committed to demonstrating why the acts performed against European Jews were so terrible in kind and magnitude, even though hostility was shared by an energized German population. Through this, European Jews in Germany were exposed to various oppressive actions such as limited access to social amenities compared. This justifies that he was a monster human who never advocated for equality, as this hatred also resulted in the Holocaust.
Favoring blonde hair and blue eyes
Hitler considered that those individuals in Germany with blonde hair and blue eyes were Aryan; hence he favored them and considered them superior to other races. Hitler was indeed a German, and persons with “blonde hair and blue eyes” are rather popular in Germany. Furthermore, he believed that most early Germanic people had such appearances(Bitesize). He desired Germany to revert towards its deep history, where the Germans were robust and powerful. His understanding of the situation was likewise poor. Blonde suggested you weren’t inclined to be a Middle Eastern Jew to them, even though Middle Easterners could as well possess such traits. He then favored Citizens with such appearances and protected them, unlike the other tribes.
As a Ruthless individual, Hitler executed the Holocaust, killing European Jews who lived in Germany. Hitler talked openly of his hatred for European Jews and his belief that they were not supposed to be in Germany. Initially, he had no intentions of mass killing at the time. The Nazi high brass came up with the notion and feasibility of executing European Jews just after the onset of World War II. Throughout World War II, Adolf Hitler, as the leader of the Nazi and its allies, carried out a systematic government-sponsored murdering of over six million Jewish people, as well as thousands of other non-German tribes (Grossmann et al.). Hitler was an evil-minded individual who was ruthless and considered himself more powerful and worthy than other people. New territory, the construction of a racial and religious pure form, and the extermination of European Jews and other political foes of Germany were among Hitler’s ideological ambitions.
Battle of the bulge
Hitler’s final effort to garner World War II through the battle of the bulge depicted that he was ruthless and never considered the significance of the consequences that might arise. He attempted to duplicate his 1940 victory by assaulting the Allies with the same method. The German troops were substantially smaller and less powerful than in 1940 because they lacked gasoline. They rallied against an opponent far stronger than the French army they had earlier attacked in 1940 (Burgan). Attacking the Russians and attempting to stop their progress would have been much more prudent, given that the Battle of the Bulge seemed hopeless from the beginning. Many soldiers perished through this ruthless approach, which can then be associated with his quest for selfishness rather than valuing life.
When defining a monster, it is usual that individuals neglect to take attitude and emotions into consideration. Monsters are not necessarily animals but human beings who suggest that they are not sympathetic or do not have feelings. However, people are not born monsters; they are created. Selfishness, Oppressiveness, and Ruthlessness are all character traits of a monster. If one possesses these traits, they are a monster. Adolf Hitler is an example of how his quest for leadership made him turn him a monster, as he made the lives of many people turn miserable, and this is why he is among the most-hated leaders in history. Therefore, human beings as a monster as a person who is known to be cruel, also frightening, or evil person who does evil things like killings, torture, massacre, and even extrajudicial killings.
Bitesize. “Life For Women And The Family In Nazi Germany – CCEA – GCSE History Revision – CCEA – BBC Bitesize”. BBC Bitesize, 2019, https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zxb8msg/revision/2.
Burgan, Michael. The Battle of the Bulge: Nazi Germany’s Final Attack on the Western Front. Tangled History, 2019.
Grossmann, Atina, Mark Edele, and Sheila Fitzpatrick. Shelter from the Holocaust: Rethinking Jewish survival in the Soviet Union. Wayne State University Press, 2018.
Swanepoel, Piet. "On defining the category MONSTER–using definitional features, narrative categories, and Idealized Cognitive Models (ICM's)." Eurex (European Association for Lexicography) Proceedings (2010) https://euralex.org/wp-content/themes/euralex/proceedings/Euralex2010/134_Euralex_2010_9_SWANEPOEL_OndefiningthecategoryMONSTER_usingdefinitionalfeatures,narrativecategoriesandIdea.pdf
Yugi, Jayden. “10 Mistakes By Hitler That Prove He Was An Idiot”. Medium, 2020, https://historyofyesterday.com/10-mistakes-by-hitler-that-prove-he-was-an-idiot-a8f97d0b81fc.
Moral Principle Of Life In Socrates’ Apology Sample Essay
Moral principles can be described as guidelines that human beings live by to ensure that they behave the right way and that their actions are appropriate. These ethical principles include qualities like equality, fairness, and honesty. However, these moral principles are different for different people because they are dependent on a person’s background and how an individual was raised. Moral principles were believed to be essential in the past because the societies that followed them believed that people required a clear sense of wrong and right to be successful. Socrates had his own moral principles, and they were based on ethics. Generally, Socrates believed that if everyone knew what good is, they would always strive to do what is good. Therefore, if one genuinely understood the meaning of important values like self-control, courage, and justice, they would act in a self-controlled, courageous, and just way. Socrates believed that those who committed vices did so out of pure ignorance. In Socrates’ Apology, he mentioned several vital things in his defense that can be considered as moral principles of life.
Socrates says, “They have hardly uttered a word, or not more than a word, of truth; but you shall hear from me the whole truth” (Plato 1). This statement refers to his accusers who are using false accusations against him. The virtue that Socrates is trying to highlight here is truth or honesty. Socrates always argued in philosophy that the absolute truth is knowable and that people communicate best when they communicate by telling only the truth. He was therefore surprised that his accusers would go to the extent of making up lies that were extremely convincing so that they could convince the judges that he deserved punishment all because they hated him for condemning their wrongdoings. Socrates urges people to always stand for truth and speak only what is true because lying is a vice. He, therefore, gave his life up in the name of justice and truth because he believed justice could not be separated from the ethical commitment of honesty. Socrates subliminally relates wisdom to goodness and associates ignorance with evil. His principle is that no one would practice immorality knowingly and since we are all wise in unique ways and thus we cannot just blindly do evil because it results from the highest level of ignorance.
Socrates says, “I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man, public as well private” (Plato, 12). This is one of the most profound doctrines taught by Socrates. He lets his audience know that wealth and riches do not bring about values to an individual’s life. On the contrary, he argues that people need to have virtues if they want to acquire anything else that is good in life. Therefore, those who want to succeed in life should focus on practicing what is right and generally doing to others what they would like to be done unto them.
I partly agree with Socrates’ principles. Most of the things he says make sense and are accurate. However, I choose to disagree about the argument that evil is brought about by ignorance. Some people could be fully aware of what they are doing, but they still choose to engage in vices. I believe that doing right or wrong is a matter of choice rather than wisdom and ignorance, and people make decisions to be either good or bad.
Jowett, Benjamin. “Selected Dialogues of Plato: The Benjamin Jowett Translation.” (2000).
Most Important Reasons For Low Public Trust In Government? How Could Public Trust In Government Be Increased? Sample College Essay
There are three significant factors that have been associated with the lack of the public’s trust towards the government. Political differences are the key contributing factors in which a greater percentage of the opposing party citizens have low trust in the government after their defeat. Negative impacts concerned with the government ruling help increase the public’s lack of trust in the government; these impacts include the decline in economic growth, insecurity, and increased unemployment rates. Lastly, injustice contributes to the low trust in the government, considering certain diverse factors in the country. However, despite the low in the government, there are also essential factors that can help increase trust in the government. Government is a significant contributing factor to this aspect. Definition and the transparent implementation of the government missions and justice in the government contribute to the increment in the public’s trust in the government.
Most important reasons for low public trust in government
There are various reasons through which the public has lowered its trust in the government. Political differences are a key factor in the United States of America that contributes to low public trust in the government. In the United States, it is observed that there are two major parties with an inclusion of the republican and the Democratic party (Newton et al., 2018). In the election period, the citizens are divided by these two parties, and in this period, every citizen gain confidence and trust of his or her supporting party. Only one winner forms the government; based on these factors, the winning party members continue to trust the government. However, low trust or distrust occurs when various citizens supporting the losing party fail to accept the fact that the elected opposing leader has the responsibility of making the government (Citrin & Stoker., 2018). This brings about a lack of trust in the government based on political differences.
An increase in the adverse issues of concern in the country after a certain government resumes leadership promotes low public trust in the government. It is evidenced that factors like a decline in economic growth, increased insecurity factors, and increased unemployment rates in the country make the public lose trust in the government. In most of the campaign manifestos, these leaders make promises to lead the country economically, socially and politically. However, in their leadership, a decline in economic growth or an increase in unemployment forces the public to believe that the government is unworthy to lead the nation towards achieving its goals.
Injustice is another key factor that makes the public to lower trust in the government. In most of cases, the leadership of a certain government is associated with increased instances of injustice. The affected and the victims lose trust in the current government (O’Brien et al., 2019). For example, increased cases of racial discrimination, which is associated with a certain government, make the public lose trust in the concerned government. The government is expected to offer justice despite the diversity and any differential factors.
How the public trust in the government can be increased
There are various factors that can promote an increase in the government’s trust. Definition and transparent implementation of the governmental missions is an essential aspect that can help increase the public’s trust towards the government. Transparency is a key attribute to trust. For instance, if a ruling government defines and implements its missions with the public’s knowledge, factors like the political differences are eliminated, and everyone gets assured that the government is working according to its roles (Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2018). For instance, a republican supporting citizen witnessing a democratic leader working towards meeting the nation’s missions and objectives will change the political difference views and perspectives and gain trust in the government. In every factor, government ruling in consideration of justice can help augment the people’s trust in the government. A fair and just government ensures that every factor concerning the nation is acted upon despite any differences. It has been observed that the presidents of the United States of America who have worked limiting the aspects of racial discrimination have been regarded among the best (Rivas, 2021). This is similar to the governments working towards the improvement of economic growth. This concludes that perfect ruling by the government increases the public’s trust towards the government.
Conclusively, it is essential to understand that the public distrust of the government is based on various factors like injustice and political injustice. However, the government should understand that it is the contributing factor to a bigger percentage of the citizens losing trust in the government. Hence, it should meet effective justice recommendations to restore and sustain trust.
Newton, K., Stolle, D., & Zmerli, S. (2018). Social and political trust. The Oxford handbook of social and political trust, 37, 961-976.
Citrin, J., & Stoker, L. (2018). Political trust in a cynical age. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, 49-70.
O’Brien, T. C., & Tyler, T. R. (2019). Rebuilding trust between police & communities through procedural justice & reconciliation. Behavioral Science & Policy, 5(1), 34-50.
Rivas, R. (2021). Public Trust in Latin American Courts (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at El Paso).
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., John, P., Meijer, A., & Worthy, B. (2018). Do freedom of information laws increase the transparency of government? A replication of a field experiment. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 1, 1-10.