| Well, if Mr. Rogers Says it's OK�[Interesting Title- I think I like it! :)] That's real nice...I handed this in 6 days late, on the day he died. What a twisted broad... Everyone knows what morality is, but can everyone define it? Many can't, and those are the same people that begin dull speeches with "Webster's defines [insert lackluster colloquialism here] as�" Thankfully, Stephen L. Carter provides adequate clarity for these intellectual juveniles [This can be offensive to some], while at the same time is engaging and informative to a more erudite audience; he bridges the gap between the intelligent and others in such a way as not only to define morality and integrity, but also to discuss its application to daily life. Of course, to say that someone makes the "best" argument is purely an arbitrary statement of preference and a decent case can be made for any of the three authors. I just thought Carter was easier to work with. Carter relates his points in such a way as to create a sort of unity with his reader [what does this mean?] oh....my...god..., with a personal account of his youth experiences [awkward] I know you are but what am I? with morality to which nearly anyone can relate. He discusses the manner in which he cheated at a [in a] -I'm gonna go with 'no' on that one...schoolroom guessing game and the shame he experienced when his fraudulent tactics of victory were revealed [passive voice] sure is... to the rest of his class. Almost everyone can remember doing something similarly deceitful, and may also recall or imagine a similar sense of disgrace which would accompany the discovery of his/her unethical devices. [underdeveloped] Now listen here, woman... Carter contends that the mere recollection or notion of said discovery should be more than enough to dissuade anyone from immoral action, but that one should also consciously avoid putting himself in a situation where deceit would seem to be an option for success. To quote him: "Fortunately for my own moral development, I was caught.... it is good that I was made to feel [ashamed], for I had something to be ashamed of" (158). Never mind that he ended a sentence with a preposition [does that affect his argument?] if I may direct your attention to the bold phrase which immediately follows:, the message still stands: if he had not been caught then, he surely would have become a criminal and/or con artist of some sort, rather than the accomplished author he was nearly six years ago [slippery-slope argument] I really wish she'd stop making up words. [Trans?] as in Trans-Am? No, I don't have one, why? If it is true that all of his points are clear, then some must be overly generalized to the point where one doubts their validity. Take for example the blanket statement made regarding Americans' penchant for winning superseding that for playing by the rules. Yes, this is morally unjust, but it is not nearly safe to presume that all Americans would rather win than demonstrate proper sportsmanship. That's why the players all shake hands after Little League games.[Really? oversimplification] Hey, it's all relative, man. In discussing morality, Carter claims it is virtually indistinguishable from integrity, which he defines according to three principles. The first is the ability to differentiate that which is right from that which is wrong, obviously a necessity. The second tenet involves acting in accordance with one's decision on the first continuously and without fail, no matter the circumstances. Finally, one must state openly and with conviction that he is carrying on according to his interpretation of right and wrong. As Carter says, "�a person of integrity is unashamed of doing the right" (161). He seems to argue that those who carry on with integrity, leading an integral life, [paraller structure needed] Um...no are worthy of praise and respect, though it is certainly not applicable everywhere, such as when one attempts to defend his writing on the basis of integrity. [Explain this] Bullshit. She knew exactly what I was talking about, like me refusing to "take it in the ass and write her way" as James put it. Carter aims to please various areas of the scholarly spectrum in his definition of integrity, going so far as to suggest that readers need not necessarily accept "integrity" as the proper word to convey the ideas about moral conviction which he purports. While he may simply be second-guessing his own word choice and at a loss for a suitable substitute, he is incontrovertibly reader-friendly, especially when one is virtually unrestricted in his interpretations of Carter's terminology. I, for example, will be using the word "phlobe" in place of "integrity" from this point forward.[This makes no sense - I'm assuming this si sarcasm - and here it will alienate your reach] I don't know why it's so hard to grasp that I don't care. Oh, right, woman... |
| This one was on which author out of three provided works made the best argument about morality. I only bothered skimming one reading, so guess who I chose... Did my best not to be confusing on the comments...if I failed at that, lemme know. |
| [Thesis?] |
| I actually used the [] here--> |
| [This could use parallel structure.] |