A Comparison in Anthem

They will be stated in the following paragraphs. There are similarities between Equality 7-2521 and Adam. They were both born with a natural curiosity. The curiosity caused them to do something that was explicitly forbidden. This led Equality 7-2521 to rediscover something that was wiped from human memory for a great length of time as stated on page 52: â€Å"We, Equality 7-2521, have discovered a new power of nature. And  we have discovered it alone, and we alone are to know it. † (Rand 41)He attempted to share his discovery but was rejected and scorned. Adam’s curiosity led him to eat the â€Å"forbidden† fruit from the tree from the center of the Garden of Eden. This action caused his banishment from the Garden of Eden. What they both committed was considered by the governing authority to be sins. Equality 7-2521 was forced to run away because he dared to have an independent mind. Adam was forced out of Eden because he did not obey God. Also†¦ They were condemned for committing a great â€Å"sin. † The â€Å"sin† was disobeying a godlike authority. Equality and Adam both obtained information that was forbidden by the authority that governed them. Equality obtained forbidden information through secretly studying information on the time before the Great Rebirth, rediscovering electricity and creating a piece of electrical equipment. The World Council banned such actions so when he tried to convince the Council of Scholars, they threatened to report him and destroy his discovery as stated on 72: â€Å"You shall be burned at the stake,† said Democracy 4-6998. â€Å"No, they shall be lashed,† said Unanimity 7-3304, â€Å"till there is  nothing left under the lashes. † And page 74: â€Å"This thing,† they said, â€Å"must be destroyed. †Ã‚  And all the others cried as one: â€Å"It must be destroyed! â€Å"(Rand 41) He was forced to run deep into the uncharted forest where he hid. Adam obtained the forbidden information through eating the â€Å"forbidden† fruit from the tree at the center of Eden. He gained knowledge of many things that were forbidden by God. As a result, he was banished from Eden. The similarities have been stated although†¦ There are also differences between Adam and Equality 7-2521. One is the sin they committed. Equality 7-2521 committed the sin of individual thought. He dared to live, think and love for himself. He also rediscovered electricity by himself, which was considered evil because he didn’t work with the rest of his â€Å"brothers† as stated on page 73: â€Å"So you think that you have found a new power,† said Collective  0-0009. â€Å"Do you think all your brothers think that?   Ã¢â‚¬Å"No,† we answered. â€Å"What is not thought by all men cannot be true,† said Collective   0-0009. â€Å"You have worked on this alone? † asked International 1-5537. â€Å"Yes,† we answered. â€Å"What is not done collectively cannot be good,† said International 1-5537. †(Rand 41)Adam committe d the sin of disobedience. He ate the â€Å"forbidden† fruit when God specifically told him not to. As a result, he was banished from the Garden of Eden. Another difference is how they reacted after they left their residence. When Adam was banished, he did not seek revenge against God. He decided to continue living as normally as possible. Equality 7-2521 on the other hand, decided to start a new society that permits individual thought and makes it his goal to tear down the society he lived in and raze the city he lived in to the ground. In conclusion, Equality 7-2521’s story is some that can be easily compared and contrasted with the Expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. This essay summarized their similarities and differences. There are many other ways to compare and contrast Adam and Equality 7-2521 that are not written in this essay. They may be in a different one. Works Cited Rand, Ayn. Anthem: Student Edition Toronto: Signet, 1995. A Comparison in Anthem They will be stated in the following paragraphs. There are similarities between Equality 7-2521 and Adam. They were both born with a natural curiosity. The curiosity caused them to do something that was explicitly forbidden. This led Equality 7-2521 to rediscover something that was wiped from human memory for a great length of time as stated on page 52: â€Å"We, Equality 7-2521, have discovered a new power of nature. And  we have discovered it alone, and we alone are to know it. † (Rand 41)He attempted to share his discovery but was rejected and scorned. Adam’s curiosity led him to eat the â€Å"forbidden† fruit from the tree from the center of the Garden of Eden. This action caused his banishment from the Garden of Eden. What they both committed was considered by the governing authority to be sins. Equality 7-2521 was forced to run away because he dared to have an independent mind. Adam was forced out of Eden because he did not obey God. Also†¦ They were condemned for committing a great â€Å"sin. † The â€Å"sin† was disobeying a godlike authority. Equality and Adam both obtained information that was forbidden by the authority that governed them. Equality obtained forbidden information through secretly studying information on the time before the Great Rebirth, rediscovering electricity and creating a piece of electrical equipment. The World Council banned such actions so when he tried to convince the Council of Scholars, they threatened to report him and destroy his discovery as stated on 72: â€Å"You shall be burned at the stake,† said Democracy 4-6998. â€Å"No, they shall be lashed,† said Unanimity 7-3304, â€Å"till there is  nothing left under the lashes. † And page 74: â€Å"This thing,† they said, â€Å"must be destroyed. †Ã‚  And all the others cried as one: â€Å"It must be destroyed! â€Å"(Rand 41) He was forced to run deep into the uncharted forest where he hid. Adam obtained the forbidden information through eating the â€Å"forbidden† fruit from the tree at the center of Eden. He gained knowledge of many things that were forbidden by God. As a result, he was banished from Eden. The similarities have been stated although†¦ There are also differences between Adam and Equality 7-2521. One is the sin they committed. Equality 7-2521 committed the sin of individual thought. He dared to live, think and love for himself. He also rediscovered electricity by himself, which was considered evil because he didn’t work with the rest of his â€Å"brothers† as stated on page 73: â€Å"So you think that you have found a new power,† said Collective  0-0009. â€Å"Do you think all your brothers think that?   Ã¢â‚¬Å"No,† we answered. â€Å"What is not thought by all men cannot be true,† said Collective   0-0009. â€Å"You have worked on this alone? † asked International 1-5537. â€Å"Yes,† we answered. â€Å"What is not done collectively cannot be good,† said International 1-5537. †(Rand 41)Adam committe d the sin of disobedience. He ate the â€Å"forbidden† fruit when God specifically told him not to. As a result, he was banished from the Garden of Eden. Another difference is how they reacted after they left their residence. When Adam was banished, he did not seek revenge against God. He decided to continue living as normally as possible. Equality 7-2521 on the other hand, decided to start a new society that permits individual thought and makes it his goal to tear down the society he lived in and raze the city he lived in to the ground. In conclusion, Equality 7-2521’s story is some that can be easily compared and contrasted with the Expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. This essay summarized their similarities and differences. There are many other ways to compare and contrast Adam and Equality 7-2521 that are not written in this essay. They may be in a different one. Works Cited Rand, Ayn. Anthem: Student Edition Toronto: Signet, 1995.

Discussion Board Post Response Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 5

Discussion Board Post Response - Essay Example Kelly Leonard, my organizations approach is analogous to yours in that trust, communication, respect, and support are the key elements that support healthy relationships between managers and employees in our organizations. Jayne Davey, I support your statement that you would incorporate relationship building and optimism to transform your working environment. Being enemies in the workplace will automatically affect communication and this translates to a strained relationship. Conflicts is one of the issues that contribute to strained relationships and managers ought to focus their attention to implementing action plans that avert any likelihood of conflicts arising in the workplace. This can be achieved through teamwork and collaboration (Muha and Manion, 2010). Teamwork enables employees to understand their colleagues at a personal level and therefore understand how to handle each other. For instance, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a colleague will guide one to identify how to engage the colleague in various projects as well as areas he or she would require assistance and support. Healthcare institutions with a collaborative culture rarely witness conflicting situations among employees since problems are resolved before they escalate. In a nutshell, your approach to transform your working environment through relationship building would definitely result to positive

Sentencing Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Sentencing - Term Paper Example Contextually, there are various considerations and provisions under the aforementioned clause, wherein courts are required to perform a review of every case in relation to proportionality (Gardner & Anderson, 2011). The major considerations and provisions that are included in proportionality in the US Courts are as follows. The magnitude of the crime committed and the severity of the punishment sentenced Sentences that are enforced for identical criminal acts in similar jurisdictions Sentences that are enforced for identical criminal acts in relation to other jurisdictions Source: (Gardner & Anderson, 2011) The principle of proportionality came into practice following the case rule in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 227 (1983) and subsequently, the Supreme Court of the US implemented the procedures in accordance with which proportionality amid crime and penalty were to be evaluated. The case of Pulley v. Harris, 1984 can also be regarded as a landmark case in the history of developing the pr inciple of proportionality by the US Supreme Court Gardner & Anderson, 2011). ... Contextually, there are certain groups of individuals who cannot be offered with the death punishment sentence. These individuals include defendants who are (i) mentally retarded or insane, or (ii) are juveniles under 18 years of age and (iii) defendants who are found to be guilty in aiding a felony act but restrains from committing a homicide or a similar category of felony themselves (Gardner & Anderson, 2011). For an example, in the case of Graham v. Florida (No. 08-7412) (2010), the delivered judgment advocated that Graham (the defendant) committed robbery and armed burglary crimes. Later, Graham was charged with additional crimes and accordingly, the trial court canceled his probation terms, convicting him with life imprisonment punishment sentence. Graham then appealed and charged against his sentences under ‘Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause’. Contextually, in accordance with the principle of the clause, because Graham was a juvenile, it was ruled that he could not be sentenced with life imprisonment of death penalty without parole in case of non-homicide crime (Cornell University Law School, 2010). The ‘Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause’, under the provisions of the US Supreme Court, also states that mentally retarded people or insane convicts cannot be deemed eligible to be punished with death sentence, but can be or life imprisonment [Ford v. Wainwright (No. 85-5542) 752 F.2d 526, reversed and remanded] (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). As mentioned above, the principle also prohibits the US courts from delivering a death sentence to a convict who is found guilty to aid and/or abet a homicide crime or equivalent criminal offence(s) but is not directly responsible for the committed crime [Enmund v. Florida (No. 81-5321) 399 So.2d