One Cigarette, One Wild Night

[I do not give permission for others to use this essay in any way, shape, or form without informing me. If you would like to use parts, or refer back to parts, ask me and I will consider.]

One Cigarette –Edwin Morgan

This poem shows its readers a beautiful relationship between two lovers. The speaker’s lover is metaphorically introduced as a cigarette, while also being shown as a human, the speaker’s addiction, and the smoker of a cigarette as well (line 3). The lover is genderless, deepening the sense of a cigarette being personified as a lover and all at once, actually being the lover. The poet’s diction includes such words as “fire” and “glowed” (1, 3) which serve to accentuate a feeling of a rich flame, one that indicates the omnipresent sexuality of the poem.

The title, “One Cigarette,” is our first peek into the message this poem contains. The word “one” indicates that the speaker is not a chain smoker (or, if we take into account the metaphor of the cigarette being the speaker’s lover, then we can conclude that the speaker is probably not promiscuous and has only one lover). The feeling one gets from the title is that of intimacy in reference to one versus many, and how truly special one over many can be.

Masculinity and Its Malleability: An Essay on Howards End

[I do not give permission for others to use this essay in any way, shape, or form without informing me. If you would like to use parts, or refer back to parts, ask me and I will consider.]

Throughout the novel, we are often led to question the gender roles into which the men of Howards End are forced. As the novel is highly feminist, due to the ideas, words, and actions of both the Schlegel sisters, it is merely inevitable that the concept of masculinity should be in the novel as well, for its existence only supplements the feminist themes. However, the pervasiveness of masculinity is multifaceted. We are made aware of Henry’s powerful masculinity, but also of Leonard’s meeker acceptance of manhood not as something taken for granted but as a privilege, a thing to be desired. Coupled with Tibby’s queerness, the range of masculinity portrayed in the novel breaks the mold of stereotype.

In this time period, being a man means acting in such a way as to imitate a Wilcox man. This involves essentially running England (albeit perhaps to a lesser degree than the Wilcoxes) while still maintaining one’s gentility. “If Wilcoxes hadn’t worked and died in England . . . There would be no trains, no ships . . . no fields even. Just savagery” (149). It takes masculinity to essentially run the country, and the Wilcox men have this. They are the ones who have built up society and as such, they are the ideal men to follow in example.

Normality vs. the Wingfields: An Essay on The Glass Menagerie

[I do not give permission for others to use this essay in any way, shape, or form without informing me. If you would like to use parts, or refer back to parts, ask me and I will consider.]

Although not introduced until the final scenes, we as readers are aware of the importance of Jim long before he physically appears. Tom indicates Jim’s importance even during his very first monologue, insisting that “[Jim] is the long delayed but always expected something that we live for” (1155). Along with being “the most realistic character in the play” (1155), Jim stands for the something that Tom’s family is missing–reality and ordinariness. Jim has aspirations as well as a desire to regain his former status in a sense. But what makes him so different from the Wingfield family when it comes to achieving this former status, is that he does so in a normal, non-conniving way, fully embodying the idea of the American Dream. The American Dream, which allows every American to accomplish previously unthought-of goals simply through hard work and dedication. Jim is able to go out and improve his life normally, while Tom, Laura, and Amanda depend on him to fulfill their longings. Each fully expects Jim to be the solution.

A Prisoners Role in a Utilitarian World

[I do not give permission for others to use this essay in any way, shape, or form without informing me. If you would like to use parts, or refer back to parts, ask me and I will consider.]

In California six years ago, a prison inmate serving fourteen years received a heart transplant for a viral heart condition, amongst much debate (“Prisoner”). Prisoners are citizens who have committed what is deemed by society as a wrong, and thus experience the revoking of certain freedoms and privileges. Should a prisoner be denied health care as well? What about the more specific case regarding an organ transplant? What are the ethical implications of allowing or denying inmates medical care of any sort? I shall look at the situation with the guidelines of the consequentialist theory of utilitarianism, thinking about both the Act-utilitarianism and Rule-utilitarianism sides and using both to further the assertion that denying most prisoners organ transplants would be in the best interests of our society.

In Defense of Relativism

[I do not give permission for others to use this essay in any way, shape, or form without informing me. If you would like to use parts, or refer back to parts, ask me and I will consider.]

Ethical absolutism and ethical relativism are two philosophical concepts which deal with interpreting moral actions and the ideas behind how we can decide what is morally “good” or “bad.” There is no definite answer, but that certainly does not mean that neither are right–to explore each concept is indeed one of the main goals of philosophers and truly the only way we can satisfy ourselves as humans. However, in this essay I will focus mainly on the failings of absolutism in comparison to relativism.

Absolutism can be described as a view held by those who call themselves “absolutists” in which it is believed that there are certain morals which can be considered “right,” despite any contradicting argument. In a sense, these moral rules are “binding on us absolutely . . . [and] allow for no exceptions” (Driver 143). This means that specific moral rules, either spiritually based or otherwise, must be followed, always, with no room to deviate.