Religion And Morality In George Eliot's Middlemarch

“Many are friars in name but few by rights. As some say, Falseness is their prophet. Their cloak's appearance is poor, but their money box

In contrast, Drummond’s agnostic views drew negative attention; Reverend Brown even referred to him as “a vicious, Godless man” (Inherit the Wind 27). Both characters understood the importance of public opinion in a trial. Brady, in an attempt to control the jury’s decision through how much each jury member liked him, chose to gain as many supporters as possible going into the trial (Inherit the Wind 41). Drummond worried less about his popularity and focused on having the facts to change people’s minds throughout the trial and to use the force of surprise to gain the support of the public to win the case immediately or to win an appeal later (Inherit the Wind 102, 116). Each attorney’s strategy achieved its goal.

I’ll read you some – an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” (35) Dr. Feversham thought that Squire Hunt was a brutal man acting upon his emotions and never giving himself time to reason. It seemed that every time Dr. Feversham got together with members of the Puritan party, he would try to reason with Quaker beliefs, however when ever he got together with members of the Quaker party, he would reason to them with Puritan beliefs. In chapter six, Dr. Feversham tries to reason with Sally about what the Puritans were going to do with Hans Pohl if caught, “I have seen Hessians sold into a lifetime of bondage for thirty dollars and I have seen their women raped with delight, and I have seen the Hessians beat to death.” (87-88) and why she shouldn’t get involved in the whole matter. When reasoning with the Quakers, it seems that Dr. Feversham loses his sense of compassion, but rather becomes what he “thinks” he despises most, which is being Squire Hunt. “Well it’s not as senseless as it might appear to be and maybe not as cruel either, it is just an implication of that fine old principle, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” (88)

In order to fully comprehend the significance of dishonesty throughout The Importance of Being Earnest, it is important to understand just how strict the Victorian

There are many ways to decide what makes a man guilty. In an ethical sense, there is more to guilt than just committing the crime. In Charles Brockden Browns’ Wieland, the reader is presented with a moral dilemma: is Theodore Wieland guilty of murdering his wife and children, even though he claims that the command came from God, or is Carwin guilty because of his history of using persuasive voices, even though his role in the Wieland family’s murder is questionable? To answer these questions, one must consider what determines guilt, such as responsibility, motives, consequences, and the act itself. No matter which view is taken on what determines a man’s guilt, it can be concluded that

I have often observed that in married households the champagne is rarely of a first-rate brand. (253) Algernon assumes his butler is a thief and his butler assumes that Algernon will put up with his thievery. Wilde’s characters barely rate the term “hypocrites,” so forward are they with their own lack of moral values.

Bret Harte’s short story, “The Outcasts of Poker Flat,” presents many characters that can be defined as morally ambiguous. One such character is the protagonist, John Oakhurst, who is the leader of the titular party of outcasts. The citizens in the town of Poker Flat want to rid the town of anybody who is considered improper. Unfortunately, this includes the protagonist, John Oakhurst. John Oakhurst is a morally ambiguous character from “The Outcasts of Poker Flat” whose gambling habits damage his relationships with people and overshadow his redeemable qualities.

Jack Worthing and Algernon Moncrieff are both high-class protagonists in society but are lying about their lives to preserve their reputations. “You have invented a very useful younger brother called Ernest, in order that you may be able to come up to town . . . I have invented an invaluable permanent invalid called Bunbury . . . ” (Wilde 1498). Ernest is Jack’s fictional brother, who always gets into mischief and uses him an excuse to go into town. Likewise, Algernon uses Bunbury, his fictitious and ill friend, to allow him to go to the country. These characters enable these gentlemen to retreat from their social obligations. Missing an essential reception to aid their “brother” or “friend,” gives the appearance that they are caring men, which is an admirable trait among the rich, but they are not. The name “Bunbury” is an interesting name

business’” (Fulton 311). Fulton then goes on to say that, “Janette Richardson [the other critic] reads the tale as a straight opposition between spiritual goodness and the evils of materialism”. And that the merchant, “has blindly accepted a worldly standard of values in place of spiritual truth; and… he is therefore doomed” (Fulton 313).

It can be assumed that if J.S. Mill and Lord Devlin ever coexisted some intoxicating deliberations regarding the role of morality in society would transpire. However, time has a peculiar habit of erecting boundaries amid centuries, allowing us only to presume discourse between the contemporary and the historical. Consequentially, each individual has an obligation to formulate his or her own appraisal established through the logistic unification of the particular instant and one's own conception of idealistic righteousness. But the acquisition of an infallible and tangible philosophy with universal application would be as obstinate to create as it would to fathom. In such regard, the apparatus on

                In some literature, a character’s moral stature plays an important role.  In the play, A Man for All Seasons, by Robert Bolt, no other character comes close to More’s moral reputation.  Thomas Cromwell and Richard Rich do not compare to More’s moral stature because both Rich and Cromwell lie, while Rich accepts bribes and Cromwell does anything King Henry VIII tells him to no matter what it is, and they will do whatever it takes to get what they want.  More on the other hand, would not lie no matter what the consequences would be, he would not accept a bribe under any circumstance and he would never go against his morals.

In his description of other pilgrims, Chaucer points out how the lack of morality within the Church is echoed by the rest of society. Several pilgrims have non-religious reasons for going on the pilgrimage. The Wife of Bath, for instance, is looking for her sixth husband, hoping that “Som Cristen man shal wed me [her] anoon” (WBT 54). Many of the characters have little or no regard for others, but instead are focused only on their own desires. The Franklin is so gluttonous that “It snewed [snows] in his hous of mete and drinke, / Of alle daintees that men coude thinke” (GP 347-8). Chaucer even suggests that the Sergeant at Law, a prominent figure in society, “seemed bisier than he was” (GP 324). The corruption of the Church has, according to Chaucer, affected the way individuals act. If the Church is immoral it is not surprising that much of society mirrors the Church’s immoral actions. The Parson cleverly describes the effect of a lack of morality in the leaders of society by comparing the corruption of individuals to the rusting of metals: “if gold ruste, what shal iren do? / For if a preest be foul, on whom we truste, / No wonder is a lewed man to ruste” (GP 502-4). Chaucer attacks not only the behaviour of the Church officials but also the immorality of the laypeople in Medieval society.

The sin of hypocrisy and secrecy is represented through the character, Arthur Dimmesdale. Dimmesdale, the minister of the town, got a married woman pregnant and concealed the fact that he did from the rest of the townspeople for many years. In the beginning of the novel, the townspeople viewed Dimmesdale’s “eloquence and religious fervor” as bringing a positive innocent man to the town (46). Though he portrays an outwardly goodness about him, he truly is mendacious on the inside. His guilty conscience caused him to become extremely sickly. The townspeople believed that Dimmesdale’s health “had suffered severely, of late, by his too unreserved self-sacrifice to the labors and duties of the pastoral relation” (74). Truthfully though, the young minister was “pale, and holding his hand over his heart” as a clue of is suffering from hiding his sin (78). Later, it is

In a society in which hierarchical structures determined the types of interactions between individuals of different classes, there would be limited opportunity for oppositional values and attitudes to directly engage. One of the distinct features of Geoffrey Chaucer’s work The Canterbury Tales is that the author creates a situation in which vastly different types of individuals can engage with one another. This illuminates their most polarizing differences and allows for their contradictory attitudes to engage. Under this pretense, Chaucer allows for the spirit of the carnivalesque to be contrasted with the religious and social structures to which it responds. This can be seen in the characters of the Wife of Bath and the Miller, and their respective stories, both displaying different incarnations of the carnivalesque, and their contraposition to the ideologies associated with Christianity. Amongst the hierarchical structures of their society, the carnivalesque attitudes of the Wife of Bath and the Miller allow for them to seize a freedom which might be denied to them by those in higher positions. This is

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data