Cultural relativism

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文 -- Cultural relativism，文章讲述CR声称世界上没有任何单一且客观上正确的道德教义或行为。道德与由不同社会的经济，社会和环境因素决定的文化有关。 CR的论据首先基于人类学观察中的各种文化事实。这个研究领域告诉我们，不同的社会有不同的道德承诺。

Cultural relativism
CR claims that there is not any single and objectively right moral doctrines or conduct in the world. Morality is related to cultures determined by economic, social, and environmental factors of different societies. CR’s arguments are firstly based on a variety of cultural facts from Anthropological observations. This field of study tells us that different societies have different moral commitments. For instance, while people in one country eat the corps of the dead father, people in another country consider it to be horrible or ugly and burn or bury their ancestor’s corps instead. For another instance, while it is the right for women in the non-Islamic countries do decide their dressing, Islamic women are obligated to cover the body and face will thick veils. Otherwise, the latter would be condemned and punished. That’s to say, what is thought to be cultural and morally right in this society would be regarded as culturally and morally wrong in another society. There do exist the distinction between moral rightness and moral wrongness in every single society. However, people moral conceptions are not objectively right, since people in another society would hold different and even conflicting standpoint when it come to the same moral issue, and they believe strongly and genuinely that their standpoints or conducts are right.
However, CR is problematic. First of all, it confuses descriptiveness with prescriptiveness, which leads to the confusion culture with morality. There do exist a variety of culture in different societies. However, many cultures are based on people’s preference and aesthetical experiences, and it is no big deal to see such varieties in our world. Sometimes, many political leaders even say the variety of culture is a good thing and necessitate cultural exchanges rather than cultural Imperialism. However, when it comes to the issue of morality, it’s much more complex. Since morality is a normative study. The fact that different people have different people moral commitments and conception does not necessarily mean that they should continue their commitment or holding their conceptions. What morality deals with is people values and interest. If we agree that people around the world indeed similar interests and that conflicts among people are obviously found everyday, then it would be doubtlessly to conclude that there would be relatively right a way to resolve conflict of interests and value among people, and that is morality.
In addition, despite the variety of culture or morality around the world, there do exist some overlapping among them. For instance, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam commonly reject murder and adultery. The fact that many religions have similar expressions in the manuscripts that “treating others as you would like to be treated as you would like to be treated” is another case to show the overlapping morality around the world. In other words, even in the descriptive sense, people do have some agreement over some issues.
What’s more, even assuming that people do have different moral conducts in different society, this does not mean that people have different moral conceptions. Granted that people mourn their ancestors in different way, they do have the same moral conception—filial piety. What differs is their way to interpret and practice this moral conception. Thus，people do all agree that filial piety is morally right and desirable.
Nonetheless, cultural relativism might claim that the claim that there exist an objective right moral conception or conduct might have disastrous results, since wars in the name of “real religion” in the seventeenth and eighteenth century had told us that to claim the existence of a real or objective thing or conception would result in blood and war. In contrast to cultural or moral objectivism, relativism is a doctrine of tolerance and peace. If we agree that people’s moral conceptions are relative, we would tolerate differences among us. No Crusade, no war, no invasion.
In my point of view, the above view seems to overestimate the influence of moral ideas on politic reality or international relationship. Truly, certain wars are in the name of morality. However, they are not driven by morality but economic factors or emperors personal ambition. Secondly, the fact that I believe some moral standpoints of view are objectively right and what I am holding are the ones does not necessarily mean that I am going to ruin the dissenters physically. I might claim that dissenters are morally wrong and provide my arguments, hoping dissenters be convinced. However, if they do not agree with me, I would tolerate they, if and only if their points of view would not trouble me. That’s to say, the true definition of tolerance lies in the fact that, even though I thing people are morally wrong objectively, I still get along well with them.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创优秀代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的作业代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多代写范文提供作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。

Concerned about how or if robots can replace humans

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文 -- Concerned about how or if robots can replace humans，文章讲述随着技术，科学和人类社会的发展，机械和机器人被大量生产，并被广泛用于人类生活的各个方面，例如生产劳动力，科学研究或日常家务劳动。随着机械的功能深入渗透到人类社会，公众中引发了一个有争议的问题，那就是机器人（一种看起来像具有高度智能的人类的机器）是否会取代工作场所或什至是人类的机器。

Concerned about how or if robots can replace humans
With the development of technology, science and human society, machinery and robots are produced massively and are more widely used in every aspect of human life, for instance production workforce, scientific research or daily housework. As the function of machinery infiltrates deeply into human society, a disputable concern is raised up within the public that is whether or not robots, a kind of machine that look like human being with highly developed intelligence, would replace human beings in working places or even in private cases and jeopardize human life and society. Public opinion varies towards this question; however, in Humanoid Robotics and My Friend Robot, two distinct streams of opinions are presented respectively. David Bruemmer states in his article Humanoid Robotics despite the fact that humanoids do bring ethical problems, humanoids are still helpful and human beings should not fear them as long as they are well-programmed. In the other article, My Friend the Robot, the author Kathleen Richardson holds a rather negative opinion that is letting robots to function emotionally, as accompanying the elderly may cause even more serious ethical trouble than aging problem presently.
In the first article talked about, Humanoid Robotics, the author David states clearly in the first paragraph that “It is important to re-emphasize that humanoids cannot and will not ever replace humans” and from here we can conclude that the author holds a pretty positive sight that human beings shall never worry about us being replaced by machinery and robots, since they are the production of human beings. What robots can do are helping human beings and relieve us from meaningless simple works. And as technologies develop quickly and freely, human beings need more help from humanoids. As the author says, “the better a technology is, the more dependent we become upon it”, as humanoid produces such huge of benefits for us, they also bring some negative effects and pose potential threat to human society. David look at the pervasive employ of humanoids with a comprehensive and objective point of view by explain both the advantages and disadvantages. At the end of this article, he comes to a final opinion that is human beings shall never be afraid of robots which we produces with our own minds and hands and will also follow human beings’ instructions.
Kathleen Richardson mainly focuses on how or whether the robots could function as alternatives to human beings regarding functioning emotionally like offering companion to the elderly. She proposed several questions considering whether it is true that human beings could form emotional relationship with companion robots. She gives examples like the report addressed by Ada Brunstein which says that s sense of morality that kids have towards Aibo, a robotic dog, could just be out of its expensiveness and fragileness. She does admit in her article that robots indeed have many uses for the old population like Pearl and Asimo, however she points out later, using Asimo as an example, that what robots could bring to the elderly is limited and uncertain. What Asimo can do for the elderly as a therapeutic tool could never match that of human beings and it can never be equated to a man. She also indicates at the end that if researchers try to impart ethics, or in other words, emotions, in robots, the real and practical function of robots as machinery would be diminished. As for the controversial question whether or not human beings should have boundary with robots, will become more serious and provoke further problems when robots are more inclined to be used as emotional companion to human beings.
The core perceptions of the two authors are distinct from each other, as David is willing to ignore the ethical problems brought by humanoids and thinks it is necessary to erase the negative effects as long as we program them properly, however, Kathleen concerns more about the boundary problem between human beings and robots when they are functioning as emotional companions. Though, they two hold apparently different opinions with each other, the factors and elements they are considering in their articles respectively are pretty much the same. As we conclude, both David and Kathleen take the ethical problems that would be raised up by more pervasive and far-reaching function of robots, and the benefits generated in to consideration. There is this consensus of the two article that is the authors acknowledge both the good part and bad part of robots In both articles, they have analyzed both the advantages and disadvantages, for instance, David points out how important it is of robot to “free our minds for more worthy efforts”, meanwhile also states later if we “develop an emotional conception in a robot”, serious social and moral consequences could be generated. Kathleen does the same way by talking about negative effects out of positive effects.
For David’s article, Humanoid Robotics, I assume it targets at audiences who are worried at the massive and penetrating function of robots in human life and are regarding the ethical problem would outweigh the actual use of robots as workforce. At the end of his article he states like “we have designed to model and extend aspects of ourselves and, if we fear them, it is because we fear ourselves”, which I believe is used to reaffirm the benefits robots bring to us and to erase the doubt and concern existent. As for the Kathleen’s article, I arrive at this solution that the intended audiences are those who are enthusiastic and totally supportive to artificial intelligence. Similarly, evidence can be found in the last paragraph, “If researchers apply ethics to machines, then potential of the technology would be overshadowed by an uncertainty about who and what it is for”.
In the article Humanoid Robotics, David used the example of Isaac Asimov’s fiction books as a negative example to argue that it is not practical to predict the emergent effect of robots’ behaviors and it is never easy to underlie rules for robot investment. However, this Isaac Asimov example actually could just increase the fear of robots since the example proves that predicting robots’ behavior is difficult, which is not consistent with his thesis. In contrast, Kathleen employs several rhetorical questions in My Friend the Robot to promote her arguments. For instance, she throws out a question in the middle of her article first, “Could companion robots be a technological solution to the problem of elderly alienation?”, and then gives her answer in the next whole paragraph. By arguing this way, she makes her essay more compelling and persuasive.
As for the tone of the two articles, both David and Kathleen hold a very certain, eloquent and persuasive tone while presenting their opinions. David uses words like never and will frequently, for instance sentence “humanoids will never rise up and wrest control from our hands shows his resolution. Kathleen also uses expressions like “ I think” to illustrate her thoughts, for example, “ I think the following examples symbolize the inherent problem in equating robots and humans.
We have analyzed before that the two article adopted same elements in consideration, both advantages and disadvantages are admitted in both articles. Then, how come there is such a huge difference between the conclusions of the two articles? The reason lies at the different emphases David and Kathleen hold, David focusing on the practical and traditional use of humanoids as workforce, however, Kathleen stresses on the scenario that robots function as human companion emotionally. Regarding the issue of robots application, I personally think that we would be better to take both the practical function and ethical rules in to consideration and to remember one principle, using robots to benefit the society and our life, instead of posing threat to us.
51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创优秀代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的作业代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多代写范文提供作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。

Based on the deontic argument

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文 -- Based on the deontic argument，文章讲述功利主义者可能会说，不，这不是正确的选择。尽管Courtesan Laetitia的人过得并不体面，拥有大量金钱，但您朋友的女儿和前妻却受到死亡威胁。因此，似乎最佳的方法似乎是将钱或至少一些钱捐给您朋友的前妻。没有人知道您曾经答应将钱交给妓女。因此，您的声誉不会受到影响。整个社会将从您的谨慎行动中受益-两个人将得到拯救。

Based on the deontic argument
If I were the one in that scenario, I would act according to my friend’s will. Passing his stash of cash to Laetitia is to do what I had promised.
It seems that to keeping one’s word is obviously a moral obligation. By keeping my word, I am respecting my friend’s will and this is the best way to mourn my friend.
Utilitarians might say, no, this is not the right thing to do. While the Courtesan Laetitia is not a decent people and have tons of money, your friend’s daughters and former wife are threatened by death. Therefore it seems that the optimal way is to give the money, or, at least some of money to your friend’s former wife. No one knows that you have ever promised that the money would be given to the courtesan. Thus, your reputation would not be hampered. The society as a whole would benefit in your prudent action—two people would be saved.
However, if the money is given to the courtesan, it is not a moral action. Firstly, Latitia is an indecent woman, giving the money to her would be a waste since she might buy many luxuries. Secondly, she is rich enough, the satisfaction to her produced by Erskin’s money would be much less than to his former wife’s if the money was given to her. Lastly, since your friend is making a bad decision, if you do not help him to do the right thing, your friend’s and your reputation might decline if you insist giving the money to you’re the prostitute.
Therefore, the right way is to give the cash to his daughter and former wife.
I would reply that utility is not the issue I am concerning about. Firstly, is there any substance called “society” who are benefiting from my behavior? There exist no society will a free will enjoying the utility I am producing. The concept is an empty metaphor and what actually exist is every individual. Even there exists such a substance named “society”, why should I produce the so-called utility for it? What I am concerning about is my obligation to fulfill my promise. This is the best way to respect the rule and my friend. Otherwise, I am using my friend’s money without his approval, which is pilferage. Yes, I do show sympathy to the tragic condition his wretched former wife is confronting. But that’s does not justify my pilferage. Assuming the existence the substance called “society” and that my behavior might seem to produce larger amount of social utility does not necessarily means that it is my obligation to give the cash to his former wife. It is possible that other people who are more valuable to the society and more wretched than his former wife is also threatened by death. Therefore, it seems that I should give the money to such persons. However, if we further this inference, it is also possible that using the money in other way would produce much more “social utility”. Thus, I should not use the money until I figure out the so-called best way to use the money.
I do feel a great pity to know that my friend’s former wife is threatened by poverty or disease. However, breaking my promise is not the sole solution. I might use my money to save her, or, I might give the money to the courtesan and make effort to persuade her to give some money to his wife. However, am I begging the question? Even his former wife have no other access to survive--I am also poor to provide any help, the courtesan is unwilling to help, and no other is going to help her—I should not break my promise. As a poor one, I have tried my best to help her by trying to persuade the courtesan, I would not feel unease to witness the death of his former wife, though it is tragic. The reason is that, every individual is going to confront the contingency. Some contingencies are irresistible, but some are not. What his wife confront is exactly an irresistible one and morality have to accept it. Lastly, the argument that “if I give the money to the prostitute, my friend’s and my reputation might decline” is also ungrounded. Firstly, it is based on the utilitarian inference that the decision to give the money to the courtesan is wrong. However, on the Kantian ground, this action is morally right. Thus, giving the money to the prostitute would do no harm to my reputation and my friends’ if all of the people agree with Kant.


51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创优秀代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的作业代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多代写范文提供作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。

The Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文 -- The Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program，文章讲述罗伊·布朗（Roy Brown），现年54岁的无家可归者，于2007年12月在路易斯安那州什里夫波特市抢劫了资本一银行。后来在卡多地区法院，他因抢劫100美元被判处15年徒刑。由于无家可归，他饿了，需要100美元才能留在排毒中心。

The Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program
Roy Brown, a 54 year-old homeless man, robbed the Capital One Bank in Shreveport, Louisiana in December 2007. Later in Caddo District Court he was sentenced for 15 years in prison for the robbery of only 100 dollars. Being homeless, he was hungry and needed 100 dollars to stay at the detox center. He walked into the bank and put one hand in his pocket to pretend that he had a weapon. He asked the teller for money, and she offered him three stacks of money, but he only took a 100 bill. What’s more, the next day he came to the police station voluntarily and told the police his crime because he was remorseful. However, he would be put into prison for 15 years after all.
On the other hand, Paul R. Allen, the CEO of Taylor, Bean and Whitaker Mortgage Corp(TBW)-one of the nation’s largest privately held mortgage lenders, was sentenced to 40 months in prison for helping Lee B. Farkas to defraud the U.S. Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program(TARP). The fraud scheme caused BPW to collapse in 2009 along with Alabama-based Colonial Bank, of which the collapse was the sixth largest bank failure in the US. Other two banks - Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas - suffered great loss, not to mention nearly 2000 employees also lost their jobs after the crime became public. Allen was chief executive of TBW, by the time he became CEO in2003 this fraud has already been planned. In fact, the fraud scheme was considered one of the biggest corporate frauds in U.S. history. Despite the seriousness of this case, Allen’s sentence was slightly less than the six-year term sought by federal prosecutors.
The two cases drew lots of attention after being reported. Seemingly, the sentence for Brown is too cruel while the one for Allen is too tolerant. As a matter of fact, lots of news reports online covered them together with a title of something like “Two Sentence”. Not only net citizens but also web editors claimed the sentences to be unfair. For instance, one website posted that “Earlier today, Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Perry Barlow highlighted two recent news stories that demonstrate the degree to which the U.S. criminal justice system casually crushes the lives of poor defendants, while coddling the rich.” (Snopes.com)Many angry people even stated that they should help Brown to fight for justice. Like John Perry Barlow, most people attributed the huge difference between the two sentences to race and wealth. However, more should be understood than just the difference between the two people in wealth and race.
There are factors which help mitigate the sentence of Allen. His crime was a non-violent one for example, and the crime was already planned before he became CEO. Moreover, Lee Farkas-sentenced thirty years in prison- instead of Allen was the mastermind of the fraud. Allen was also one of the six people who cooperated with investigators and his testimony against Farkas earned him a credit on his sentence. After deepening the knowledge of Allen’s case, the seemingly unjust sentence is easier to understand. Allen, though committed an evil and unpardonable crime, got the proper punishment he deserved.
When it comes to Brown, the homeless man who would spend next 15 years in prison for 100 dollars, there are also factors ignored by many people that have an impact on his sentence. He was put into prison not because of the money, but his crime. His behavior was classified as first degree crime-the offender takes no weapon with him but makes the victim to believe he has a weapon and takes something valuable. Another factor that may have contributed to his sentence is prior conviction. Although Brown is regretful for what he did-the poor man told the police his mother didn’t raise him this way, the law is the law, and he should be responsible for his behaviors.
However, it can’t be said that the strong opinions of people on race and wealth make no sense.Indeed, things like this happen a lot. For instance, Jamie Scott and Gladys Scott were convicted of orchestrating an armed robbery in 1993 in Mississippi. They along with other three teenagers robbed no more than 11 dollars. But they were both received double life sentences.
It is very cruel sentences for two teenage girls who have no previous criminal records. What’s more, the governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour pardoned more than 200 people, among which there were 6 people who killed their wives or girlfriends. On the contrary, the governor didn’t pardon the Scott sisters. After 16 years, the Scott sisters were released from prison for kidney donation. Before that, their petition to appeal to U.S. Supreme Court failed twice. The Scott sisters, being poor and black, were punished too much and didn’t had the chance to get the same treatment like wealthy or white people have.
I strongly agree with the statement that the best way for a society to instill confidence in its citizens is by implementing a fair and unbiased justice system in which the punishment actually matches with crime.The most important premise of a constitutional society is that all people regardless of race and wealth shared the same rights and be treated equally when facing lawsuit. Otherwise, the law will lose its authority and function of restricting unwarrantable activities because people are treated differently. People will wonder why the law shows different mercy to different people. In consideration of that, it’s obvious that the current situation of justice system needs improvement. Like Brown and the Scott sisters, poor people can’t afford good lawyers as the rich and powerful do, and their fates are facilely determined by severe sentences for some mistakes they aren’t even aware of. More should be done than just feeling sorry for them. In case more tragedies like this happen, officials should indeed focus on this problem and give more opportunities to the poor.

Work Cite
Article contrasts sentences given to Royal Brown and Paul R. Allen, Crime Stories,
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/roybrown.asp
Article contrasts sentences given to Royal Brown and Paul R. Allen, Crime Stories,
http://melaniannews.net/tag/ex-mortgage-ceo/
Article contrasts sentences given to Royal Brown and Paul R. Allen, Crime Stories,
http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2011/06/23/two-sentences.htm
Article contrasts sentences given to Paul R. Allen, Crime Stories,
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/morning_call/2011/06/former-taylor-bean-ceo-gets-3-years-in.html
Article contrasts sentences given toHaley Barbour,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/8-of-the-murderers-haley-barbour-pardoned-killed-their-wives-girlfriends/
Article contrasts sentences given to the Scott sisters, Crime Stories,
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2010/nov/03/the-tragic-case-of-the-scott-sisters/

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创优秀代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的作业代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多代写范文提供作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。

Anti-colonialism in Gulliver's Travels

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文 -- Anti-colonialism in Gulliver's Travels，文章讲述《格列佛游记》的作者乔纳森·斯威夫特（Jonathan Swift）出生于爱尔兰都柏林，这个国家在英国启蒙运动期间被英国殖民。返回爱尔兰后，他加入了民间团体，与大不列颠的殖民统治作斗争。这些生活经历可以在他的著名小说《格列佛游记》中再现。这本小说的主题是反殖民主义意识形态。这就是本文主要关注的问题。 Swift是如何揭示它的？本文分别以直接或间接的方式从Laputa和Houyhnhnms的三个方面进行了总结。

Anti-colonialism in Gulliver's Travels
Jonathan Swift, the author of Gulliver’s Travel，was born at Dublin of Ireland，a country which was colonized by the Great Britain during the Enlightenment in the Great Britain. After returning Ireland, he joined the civil group to fight against the colonial rule of the Great Britain.These life experience can reappear in his famous novel,Gulliver's Travel. This novel is centered on one of the theme, ideology of anti-colonialism. And this is what this paper mainly concerns. How did Swift reveal it?This paper concludes it from three aspects in Laputa and Houyhnhnms in a direct or indirect way respectively.
To begin with, colonialism was manifest directly when he was traveling in Laputa. Swift proved this from the law enacted by the king. Taking the paragraph in page 108 for example, “If any town should engage in rebellion or mutiny, fall into violent factions, or refuse to pay the usual tribute, the king has two methods of reducing them to obedience.The first and the mildest course is, by keeping the island hovering over such a town, and the lands about it,whereby he can deprive them of the benefit of the sun and the rain, and consequently afflict the inhabitants with dearth and diseases.”From the above description, readers can feel that people in other countries were oppressed heavily and crucially by the king and his law, and it is the king who has the final say to let someone disappear or not. In order to defeat those people, the king has taken several crucial measures to fight against them. During the 18th and 19th century, several countries, such as India, Ireland had been colonized by the Great Britain. And people in these countries were lived under relentless oppression, even the inspector general who was cold blooded and not qualified enough was assigned to govern those countries.This situation is almost the same as the description in this novel.Therefore, colonialism was hidden in it.The reason why Jonathan Swift depicted such a country was originated from his intention,the expression of his anti-colonialism.
The rebellion of the people from a country firstly mentioned in Laputa, another scene can present the theme of anti-colonialism directly. When the protestant of people in that country was heard by the king of the Laputa, the king gave the order to fly above the sky of that country to punish them, however, people fight against it intelligently and courageously. These can be demonstrated from the text in page 109. For example,“tall rocks generally falls out in the larger cities, it abound in pillars of stone, a sudden fall might endanger the bottom or under surface of the island, Of this the people are well apprised, and understand how far to carry their obstinacy, where their liberty or property is concerned.”From this short text, readers can feel the obstinacy and strong will existed in their heart and people’s courage to take the challenge arisen by the king. No matter how evil the plan is for the king to defeat them, they could always come up with a method to reply. And it is due to those common people's determination that the king finally yielded to them and stopped the fighting. These ordinary people just like people in Ireland and the author, who were fighting against the Great Britain. This scene maybe closely related with the author's hope, overtaking the colonization in Ireland eventually. Evidently,anti-colonialism was expressed.

Finally, anti-colonialism was implicitly expressed through an introduction to two kinds of animals and their country. These animals are horses.The one in higher position is Houyhnhnms, which is the symbol of rationalism. It maintained a simple peaceful society governed by reason and truthfulness. They do not even have a word for “lie” in their language. The other in lower position is Yahoo, who resembles human beings and behaves badly, greedy and dirty. As Gulliver described in this novel in the page of 182,“I did not feel the treachery or inconstancy of a friend, nor the injuries of a secret or open enemy.I wanted no fence against fraud or oppression.Here were no gibers, censurers, backbiters,pickpockets, highwaymen, housebreakers, attorneys, bawds, buffoons, gamesters, politicians, wits, splenetics, tedious talkers, controvertists, ravishers, murderers, robbers.” From these sentences, readers can draw a society roughly in their mind, which is harmonious and the most desirous place Gulliver or more specifically, Jonathan Swift expected to live in.This civilization is not governed by human beings but horses, nevertheless, people wish to live here, how ridiculous it is. The author depicted people who wishes to live peacefully was intended to reveal the current society, where freedom and right were deprived. And the whole society was colonized. Simultaneously, this reflect the author's desperation toward the real world. However, as people looks like yahoo, Gulliver was deported by his owner finally. This is the signal of criticizing uncivilized qualities or manners caused by crucial rule or colonization, such as greedy and dirty in that culture. In short, the author aims at revealing the negative influence of colonization has on society and their aspiration of being treated equally. To reach this goal, people must be inspired or fanned to build the awareness of anti-colonialism and fight against colonialism.
All in all, this paper has made the awareness of anti-colonialism reappear. Swift compared the scene in Laputa and Houyhnhnms to the current situation in his country and the Great Britain. Therefore, readers in Ireland can certainly be inspired to fight against those evil and crucial people to a large extent. And for those whose country was not colonized, this novel can trigger them to build the awareness. In a word, this novel is of great significance.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创优秀代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的作业代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多代写范文提供作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。