In "The Devil and Tom Walker," how does Tom's refusal to become a slave trader reflect the social and moral beliefs of Washington Irving and the...

In his dealings with "Old Scratch," Tom Walker refuses to outfit a slave ship as originally requested by the Devil: "Tom resolutely refused: he was bad enough in all conscience, but the Devil himself could not tempt him to turn slave-trader." Despite being one of the home ports for slave-trading vessels in 18th century America and the first colony to recognize slavery as a legal institution, Massachusetts—especially Boston—contained a population which gradually came to view...

In his dealings with "Old Scratch," Tom Walker refuses to outfit a slave ship as originally requested by the Devil: "Tom resolutely refused: he was bad enough in all conscience, but the Devil himself could not tempt him to turn slave-trader." Despite being one of the home ports for slave-trading vessels in 18th century America and the first colony to recognize slavery as a legal institution, Massachusetts—especially Boston—contained a population which gradually came to view slavery with distaste.

As early as 1701, pamphlets condemning slavery appeared in New England, usually penned by Puritans who hoped to refute earlier justifications for slavery based on religious tenets. Religious arguments tended to be used both for and against slavery. Massachusetts was also the first state to ban slavery in 1783. While arguments often contained religious concerns, there were also economic and secular reasons for the condemnation of slavery. Both Benjamin Franklin and the economist Adam Smith looked at slavery as an outmoded source of labor in a free market system. Moreover, the United States Constitution seemed to champion equality, which was another argument against slavery (notwithstanding the compromise which made each slave only count as two-thirds of a person).

One of Washington Irving's biographers claims the author was never an "outspoken abolitionist," yet it seems that having as loathsome a character as Tom Walker refuse to dabble in the selling of human beings is an explicit denouncement of the institution. On the other hand, it might also be argued that since Tom really was a detestable character, his choice of usury instead of slavery marks the former trade as far worse. Indeed, in 18th-century America, usury would have been frowned upon by both religious and secular groups, while slavery was often viewed as necessary to the economic well-being of the colonies.

What are ten characteristics of General Zaroff?

General Zaroff, the antagonist in Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game," should be considered a "static" character because he never changes over the course of the story. He is, however, a "round" character because he has several distinguishing characteristics:

• astute: Zaroff is quite capable of accurately assessing people and situations. When he is dining with Rainsford he seems to be sizing up his guest.


• narcissistic: Zaroff has an obsessive interest in himself as...

General Zaroff, the antagonist in Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game," should be considered a "static" character because he never changes over the course of the story. He is, however, a "round" character because he has several distinguishing characteristics:

• astute: Zaroff is quite capable of accurately assessing people and situations. When he is dining with Rainsford he seems to be sizing up his guest.


• narcissistic: Zaroff has an obsessive interest in himself as judged by his conversation where he basically discusses his life and his passion for hunting.


• sociopathic: Zaroff has a mental disorder which is displayed in his anti-social behavior and lack of conscience. He finds it perfectly just that he is able to hunt men.


• shrewd: When Zaroff escaped Russia after the revolution he was smart enough to invest in American securities so he could sustain his lavish lifestyle.


• educated: Zaroff is well-read with a large library including every book on hunting, and he is portrayed as reading the works of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius toward the end of the story.


• cosmopolitan: Rainsford notes that Zaroff was a "cosmopolite" because he was quite sophisticated in his clothes, from the finest tailor in London, and in the fine furnishings of his chateau, procured from all over the world. 


• skilled: Zaroff has grown to be a skilled hunter, so much so that animals posed no challenge and so he began hunting men. He seems to easily track Rainsford over the most difficult of trails.


• barbaric: In his diabolical practice of hunting down men, Zaroff is truly a barbarian. It is ironic that such a cultured and educated man would resort to such barbarism.


• godlike: Zaroff holds the power of life and death over the men he hunts and so has become like a god.


• passionate: Above all, Zaroff is passionate about his hunting. He could not abide his growing boredom with the sport, so he went to great lengths to produce a new type of hunting.

What is a summary of the following legal brief: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=clb

This Criminal Law Brief is concerned with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Davis v. the United States in relation to three other cases in lower courts as well as future cases.

In Davis v. the United States, the Supreme Court made a ruling on the issue of how succinctly a criminal suspect must request his/her Fifth Amendment right to counsel. The decision of the Court was that after a suspect waives his/her Miranda rights, officers of the law are permitted to continue their questioning unless the suspect makes a clear and coherent request for an attorney or the questioning clearly violates the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights. In other words, this request must be unambiguous. Thus, this decision relieves the government of the "entire burden" of protecting the individual's privilege against self-incrimination. 

Because the request must be unambiguous, this Supreme Court case permits lower courts, both constitutionally and practically, a certain latitude to interpret or ignore those requests for an attorney when they are considered ambiguous. Also according to the author of this brief, because the Davis ruling only addressed post-waiver of requests for an attorney, this case left open the determination of whether "its objective test" applies in pre-waiver situations.
Since the Davis ruling, there have been cases in which an ambiguous request was made before the Miranda warnings were given. The author analyzes these cases which follow the tendency of state and federal courts to decline extending the ruling of Davis to pre-waiver instances.

At this point, the author divides his discussion into parts:

• Miranda v. Arizona 

Here the author reviews the landmark case in which suspects were protected from police coercion during interrogations. The ruling in this case suggested that the suspects should be allowed the benefit of the doubt in the interpretation of ambiguous requests for legal counsel. The Court invoked the Fifth Amendment as a suspect's right against self-incrimination. Thus, a suspect is warned that he/she has a right to remain silent, that any statement made can be used against him/her, and he/she has a right to legal counsel. [When these conditions are given by law enforcement, this is called reading a suspect his/her Miranda.]

Whether this case has been effective in protecting suspects is debatable because there are variables that enter the evaluation. For, while studies show that some individuals are discouraged from providing information to the authorities, others feel protected by the warning, and feel encouraged to speak. In addition, there are other factors that affect confessions, factors that do not pertain to Miranda:

1. Police expertise in interrogation


2. The amount of time spent in interrogation


3. The urgency of the interrogation

Courts have also narrowed down the exclusionary rule of Miranda as, for instance, in the creation of a "public safety exception." Of course, in Davis v. the United States, the court ruled that after a suspect waives his/her rights voluntarily, the officers of the law may continue their questioning unless the suspect makes a clear request for an attorney.

• Davis v. the United States

In the next part, the author discusses the limits of Davis v. the United States which has been mentioned above. In their decision, the Justices ruled that law enforcement may continue an interrogation in which Miranda rights have been waived until such time that a suspect "clearly requests an attorney," arguing that the Miranda warning should be sufficient to protect against any coercion.

• Justice Soulter and the Clarification Approach

Law professor Marcy Strauss has argued that Davis should be viewed as a limited rule and be applied only to post-Miranda waiver situations. She further puts forth that courts should require that any ambiguous or equivocal requests by suspects be clarified before questioning or the continued questioning of a suspect.
The author concurs with this opinion in regard to ambiguous requests in pre-waiver situations. He also feels that the burden of proof that the suspect has clearly waived Miranda rights should be placed upon the authorities. And, while all questioning ceases under Miranda when a suspect requests legal counsel, the author proposes that a question to clarify what exactly the suspect wants should be asked. After this, however, the authorities must cease their interrogation if the suspect unambiguously invokes his rights.

The author discusses cases that have held Davis to be applicable, regardless of its timing (i.e. whether it is pre-waiver or post-waiver of Miranda). In his discussion, he points to two cases, Abela v. Martin and In the Matter of H.V., a juvenile.
Additionally, there is a discussion of the potential abuses of Davis. In this case nothing is stated that there are no stipulations upon the manner in which interrogators must respond to a request for an attorney. In other words, there is no restriction placed upon police that they cannot mislead the suspect by "lying about the evidence, witnesses, and the likelihood of prosecution." In fact, reference is made to certain abuses of the police in their interrogations, such as waiting to give the Miranda warnings until after having obtained confessions. Rulings have been subsequently made that police are not allowed to use misinformation about Miranda rights in order to move a suspect to waive these rights.

• United States v. Rodriquez

In this case, the suspect Rodriquez was stopped by police because he was driving erratically. When the Texas Ranger saw that he possessed a gun and he was a registered felon, the officer advised him of his Miranda rights; Rodriquez replied "I'm good for tonight." However, the court determined that this phrase is ambiguous and the officer should have ascertained what Rodriquez really meant. Therefore, the court concluded that the burden of clarification of any ambiguous statement is upon law enforcement, not the suspect.

• United States v. Fry

This is another case in which the arresting officers did not clarify the suspect Fry's statement regarding a lawyer. In addition, Fry's request was made before his rights were read to him, not after.
In this case, the Court concluded that the arresting officer's failure to clarify Fry's statement violated his rights, thus rendering Fry's confession tainted.

• State v. Blackburn

This case which was held before the South Dakota Supreme Court reiterated the rulings of Rodriquez and Fry: the investigators must clarify the waiver of Miranda rights before proceeding with their questioning. Since this was not what occurred, the court ruled that the arresting officer "had a duty to clarify Blackburn's statement to determine if he wanted an attorney."

____________________

With regards to these three cases, the author concludes that the rulings were justified. He hopes that other courts will rule similarly because the police have an obligation to clarify any ambiguities about the suspect's desire for legal counsel before proceeding.

 

 

Interpret the discussion of knowledge as true belief in Plato's Theaetetus, what are the puzzles for this position and precisely would there be...

Interpret the discussion of knowledge as true belief in Plato's Theaetetus, what are the puzzles for this position and precisely would there be a better way to confront them?

In Theaetetus, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss what knowledge constitutes. According to Theaetetus, knowledge is either one of four things: a) it is wisdom contained in the arts and sciences b) it is what our perception tells us c) it is true (belief) judgment (as opposed to false judgment), or d) it is true (belief) judgment accompanied by a logical explanation (account). 

Based on your question, you would like a discussion of c) knowledge as true belief or judgment. Theaetetus proposes that, in order to have true belief (or judgment), one must be able to distinguish it from false judgment. The puzzles for this position are as follows:

1) One problem for this position is the puzzle of misidentification, which Theaetetus equates to mistaking A for B. Socrates argues that one cannot make such a false judgment, however. If one does not know A, then one cannot know B either (and therefore cannot make a false judgement). If, however, one knows A, one will likely understand that A cannot be B.

2) Another problem is the puzzle of believing what is not. Socrates argues that one cannot equate false judgment (belief) to faith in nothing. It is technically absurd.

3) A third problem is the puzzle of Allodoxia, which equates false belief with the practice of inadvertently exchanging one piece of information for another. Socrates argues against this, as he maintains that all our thoughts are concrete and accessible to us. If we are conscious of all the objects of our thoughts, there can be no room for inadvertency. 

4) A corresponding problem rests in the puzzle of the Wax Tablet, where true belief (judgment) is acquired by what is imprinted on one's memory. According to Theaetetus, false judgment (belief) occurs when we wrongly match a memory to a perception, such as when we mistake one person for another, based on what we think we remember.

However, Theaetetus' theory does not take into account false beliefs about mathematical equations. Socrates argues that a person may believe that 7+5=11, when the truth is that 7+5=12. According to the Wax Tablet idea, false beliefs based on wrongly connecting a memory to a perception are possible, but false beliefs regarding mathematical equations cannot happen. Socrates argues that the Wax Tablet idea leaves much to be desired.

5) A final problem rests in the puzzle of the Aviary, where the birds in an aviary represent pieces of knowledge. If one catches a bird, one essentially obtains knowledge. It follows from this argument that if one catches the "wrong" bird, then one will obtain ignorance. Although Theaetetus argues that we can define false belief this way, Socrates argues otherwise. He presents a quandary for Theaetetus: what if a person obtains "ignorance" but thinks of it as wisdom or knowledge instead?

Furthermore, why does Socrates ultimately reject even the modified version of this position, which has it that knowledge is true belief and an account?

After arguing the above, Theaetetus presents the idea of knowledge as true belief (judgement) with an account (or explanation). Socrates rejects this argument because he contends that an explanation is already a part of true judgment. Therefore, it cannot in itself define knowledge. What Socrates is saying is this: to define knowledge, we still have to separate true belief from false belief; since we have yet to do this satisfactorily, how can we know what knowledge constitutes? 

Why are the king and queen worried about Hamlet?

The queen, Gertrude, is worried about Hamlet at the beginning of the play because Hamlet is still clearly mourning the loss of his father. She tells him,

Good Hamlet, cast they nighted color off,And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.Do not forever with thy vailed lidsSeek for thy noble father in the dust.Thou know'st 'tis common. All that lives must die,Passing through nature to eternity.  (1.2.68-73)

She...

The queen, Gertrude, is worried about Hamlet at the beginning of the play because Hamlet is still clearly mourning the loss of his father. She tells him,

Good Hamlet, cast they nighted color off,
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
Do not forever with thy vailed lids
Seek for thy noble father in the dust.
Thou know'st 'tis common. All that lives must die,
Passing through nature to eternity.  (1.2.68-73)

She asks that he stop wearing his black, mourning clothes and be friendly to the new king, his Uncle Claudius (who she calls "Denmark"), now his stepfather. She says that he cannot spend his life with his eyes cast down to the ground as though he were looking for his dead father there. He should know that it is common to lose one's father. Further, everything that lives eventually dies as that is the way of the world. In other words, she seems to say, enough is enough.

Claudius, the new king, and Hamlet's uncle and stepfather, professes his concern for Hamlet for the same reason but he seems somewhat less sincere. He claims, for instance, that "to persever / In obstinate condolement is a course / Of impious stubbornness" (1.2.92-94). In other words, then, he calls Hamlet obstinate, impious, and stubborn because the poor man mourns for his father, who died suddenly and fairly recently. As we learn later, Claudius is more worried about the risk Hamlet poses to him than he is for Hamlet's own welfare.

`(4,8) , (8,30)` Write a power function `y=ax^b` whose graph passes through the given points

To determine the power function `y=ax^b` from the given coordinates: `(4,8) ` and `(8,30)` , we set-up system of equations by plug-in the values of `x` and `y` on `y=ax^b` .

Using the coordinate `(4,8)` , we let `x=4` and `y =8` .

First equation: `8 = a*4^b`

Using the coordinate `(8,30)` , we let `x=8` and `y =30` .

Second equation: `30 = a*8^b`

Isolate "a" from the first equation.

`8 = a*4^b`

`8/4^b=...

To determine the power function `y=ax^b` from the given coordinates: `(4,8) ` and `(8,30)` , we set-up system of equations by plug-in the values of `x` and `y` on `y=ax^b` .

Using the coordinate `(4,8)` , we let `x=4` and `y =8` .

First equation: `8 = a*4^b`

Using the coordinate `(8,30)` , we let `x=8` and `y =30` .

Second equation: `30 = a*8^b`

Isolate "a" from the first equation.

`8 = a*4^b`

`8/4^b= (a*4^b)/4^b`

`a= 8/4^b`

Plug-in` a=8/4^b` on `30 = a*8^b` , we get:

`30 = 8/4^b*8^b`

`30 = 8*8^b/4^b`

`30 = 8*(8/4)^b`

 `30 = 8*(2)^b`

`30/8= (8*(2)^b)/8 `

`15/4=2^b`

Take the "ln" on both sides to bring down the exponent by applying the

natural logarithm property: `ln(x^n)=n*ln(x)` .

`ln(15/4) =ln(2^b)`

`ln(15/4) =b*ln(2)`

Divide both sides by `ln(2) ` to isolate b.

`(ln(15/4))/ln(2) =(b*ln(2))/(ln(2))`

`b =(ln(15/4))/ln(2) or 1.91` (approximated value).

Plug-in `b= 1.91` on `a=8/4^b` , we get:

`a=8/4^1.91`

`a~~ 0.566`  (approximated value)

Plug-in `a~~0.566` and `b ~~ 1.91` on `y =ax^b` , we get the power function as:

`y =0.566x^1.91`

Why does the speaker let the fish go?

In Elizabeth Bishop's famous poem "The Fish," the speaker spends most of the poem describing what she sees as she looks at the fish, and the poem ends, of course, with the speaker letting the fish go. 

Early in the poem, the speaker notes that the fish "didn't fight. / He hadn't fought at all" (5-6). This seems a bit unusual, but then the speaker goes on to record other details and observations about the...

In Elizabeth Bishop's famous poem "The Fish," the speaker spends most of the poem describing what she sees as she looks at the fish, and the poem ends, of course, with the speaker letting the fish go. 

Early in the poem, the speaker notes that the fish "didn't fight. / He hadn't fought at all" (5-6). This seems a bit unusual, but then the speaker goes on to record other details and observations about the fish's appearance. The fish is described as "venerable," with "skin . . . / like ancient wallpaper" (8, 10-11). The word venerable, paired with "homely" is an interesting choice on Bishop's part. To venerate something is to respect it, usually due to its age or wisdom. Homely is a less positive word, making the fish seem ordinary and not beautiful. However, it could also mean that the fish is at home or comfortable in that place.

The fish is "speckled" and "infested," which seems to further indicate that the fish is quite ugly and nothing to really be admired; however, his age is reiterated here and later in the poem. The speaker starts to imagine the make-up of the fish's body, the inside textures of the fish, in a way that is revelatory to the speaker. The speaker doesn't get much reaction when she looks into the fish's eyes, but she "admired his sullen face" (45). Here, the turning point of the poem seems to occur: the speaker notices the hooks of other fisherman in the fish's mouth. She writes, 

and then I saw

that from his lower lip

—if you could call it a lip—

grim, wet, and weapon-like

hung five old pieces of fish-line,

or four and a wire leader,

with the swivel still attached,

with all their five big hooks

grown firmly in his mouth. (47-55)

It is the speaker's observation that he has been hooked at least four other times and either thrown back or fought his way free, that seems to lead the speaker to her decision to let him go. The speaker goes on to describe the old hooks as "Like medals with their ribbons / frayed and wavering" (61-62). Here the speaker seems to interpret the hooks as trophies to the fish, that he has won over the fishermen who have tried to capture him before. As the speaker continued to look intently at the fish, "victory filled up / the little rented boat" (66-67). It is unclear whether the speaker is referring to the victory she interprets the fish to feel because of its past triumphs or the speaker's sense of victory at having caught a fish that had escaped several times before. The speaker gets excited looking at the colors in the water and then decides to throw the fish back into the water. 

Bishop's poem is ambiguous in the sense that we don't know exactly why the speaker made the decision she did. However, it's possible that multiple meanings can exist at once. It could be that the speaker feels the fish belongs in that water, that he is sort of the old, wise ruler of that environment. It is possible that she feels sympathy and has connected on a level with the fish that does not allow her to kill or eat it. It also could be that she feels having caught and held the fish for the time she did was enough "victory" for her, and she is satisfied with the experience even if she doesn't take her figurative trophy home with her.