The Sale of Grade Points (ISB Indulgences)

Today, during Humanities class Ms. Moore offered to raise our grades one level for 1000 dinars. We could purchase small pieces of paper with her signature, validating the offer. It could be cashed in at any time. I was shocked when I heard this. I was wary because it sounded too good to be true. As I thought about it, I realized it was very corrupt even if it was supposed to help fund the school. The school can get money other ways rather than bribing students to raise their grades. After a while, I realized that her offer was fake and it was just a learning activity. However, if it had been real I would not have minded paying when necessary.

Honestly, the school should never get students to pay for their grades. It is unfair to students who work hard but are less wealthy than others. Grades should be a measure of how much you work not the amount of money you are willing to spend on them. It also does not give students an incentive to work if they know they can just pay for a better grade later. It is not fair for students who work hard to receive the same grade as someone who paid for their score. Teaching us that bribery is the way to succeed in life is not morally just.

This learning activity was giving an example of the indulgences that the Church gave out so that people could "pay off their sins". It was a corrupt way for the Church to gain money and satisfy the common people's fear and guilt over the actions they commitied so that they could get into heaven. By purchasing an indulgence, some or all of the punishment a person would receive after death for their sins was gone.

In this case, Ms. Moore was the Church, instead of determining our religious fate she controls our grades. The "indulgences" were little slips of paper with her signature. In the beginning, the Pope signed all indulgences. Our class was the common people who wanted better grades instead of salvation. We had to pay to recive an indulgence like people who followed the Medieval Church. While it might of seemed corrupt, we really wanted the indulgences and were willing to pay a lot for them. 

"All the world's a stage" - William Shakespeare

This quote by William Shakespeare, the renown playwright, is about the mortality of life. It is the opening line from a monologue by the character Jaques in the play As You Like It.  Shakespeare describes the various stages in life, comparing people to actors with "their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts,". He compares the world to one huge stage, with everyone being actors who have their own short time in the limelight. Everyone has their part to play. Our first role is as an infant, then child, lover, soldier, justice, old age, and finally senility and death.

I personally agree with this quote. At first I did not understand what it meant; I thought he was saying we are all lying to each other through our scripted words. After I thought about the quote, it began to make sense. Shakespeare is comparing our short existence to filled with the different stages of life to being an actor. There are various ways to interpret this quote. One idea is while we think we are living unique, special lives we are actually just scripted by fate like the rest of the world. I disagree with this theory because I believe our actions are of our own decision not decided by some higher being. Shakespeare is also trying to say thatno matter how amazing or famous you are, your time will come to exit the stage of life. One example would be William Shakespeare himself. He contributed enormously to literature, the English language, and common phrases of today. We still say "All the world's a stage." Yet he too had his lifetime and his death. William Shakespeare's quote is an eloquent way to remark on the cycle of life and our place in the world.

Machiavelli- The Prince

"The end justifies the means" - Machiavelli The Prince

This quote by the famous Italian, Renaissance politician and author Machiavelli wmeans that as long as your efforts have the desired outcome, you can ignore the corrupt or treacherous ways you reached your goal. The end result determines the morality of one's actions. For example if you lied and cheated your way to power, it would be acceptable because you reached your ideal result. Despite the fact you back-stabbed your friends, you rose to power. Another way to look at it would be in animal testing. No matter how many chimpanzees a company had to mutilate, in the end it came up with a safe antibiotic. Machiavelli's quote would justify all the pain and suffering of the animals because the result was a drug that helped humans. He is saying that morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary for the right outcome. Machiavelli lived in a time of tumultous Italian politics. There was constant fighting for power among city-states and Pope.  He wrote The Prince  as a guide for rulers to gain and maintain power. While his book was very cynical and controversial, it was realistic. Unlike previous political scholars, such as Plato and Aristotle, Machiavelli did not write about ruling in the ideal society.

I disagree with Machiavelli's philosophy because it is immoral, selfish, and potentially harmful . Morally, how is it right to harm others, lie, and cheat for personal gain? The outcome of your actions cannot excuse your actions to begin with. Your actions are what they are, harmless or not, and the end result does not change that. If you bomb civilians to kill a terrorist, you still killed innocent civilians. The fact that you killed a terrorist does not excuse the death of other bystanders. While the motive should always be examined before judging someone based on their actions it should not exempt them from consequences. In certain cases such as a woman stealing bread for her children, the end does somewhat justify the means. Stealing to provide food for children  is preferable to children dying from starvation. Yet once people start doing anything for a "good cause" it comes into question exactly what is the "good cause" and is it merely personal gain? To truly maintain  a moral society, the end cannot justify the means. The means and the end must both be examined fairly. 

Castiglione: The Courtier

 "Outer Beauty is the true sign of inner goodness." - Castiglione, The Courtier

The author is trying to imply that superficial beauty on the outside is a sign of being a kind, compassionate, exemplary person.  He is saying that to know whether someone is a good person you should judge them on there appearance. There was a movement in the Renaissance to match facial features with personality. However I completely disagree with this quote. The most beautiful people are not always the kindest or the most noble. Mother Teresa dedicated her life to helping the poor, miserable people in Calcutta. She set up schools and started "The Missionaries of Charity" to care for people no one was looking after.  Even though Mother Teresa was not the most pretty on the outside, she is considered the epitome of dedication to others. People tend to judge other by their how they look but in reality your actions and words are the real signs of character. Having the most luscious, beautiful hair does not tell me if you are a good person.