Romeo and Juliet...Does Friar Lawrence Truly Believe Romeo and Juliet are in Love? Ethical vs Unethical?

As a human in this vast world, decision making is a normality we face all the time. Whether it be an easy or difficult one, we try and make the best decision possible to either benefit ourselves, or others we care for. In other words we strive to make ethical decisions, that make sense, rather than unethical ones that may seem harmful. A perfect example of unethical and ethical decision making, is Friar Lawrence in Romeo and Juliet. Romeo confronts Friar abruptly pleading for him to marry young Juliet and himself. He agrees to bond their so called "Love", but not because he truly believes they are met for each other, but because he somehow thinks their marriage will create peace among the rivalry; Montages vs, Capulets. His intentions are good, but he uses Romeo and Juliet's young "Rash Love", instead of expressing to Romeo his true feelings about their decision to get married, which are that they are moving much to fast for reality to catch up to them. Friar Lawrence is not convinced they should wed, although he does it anyway to make peace, therefore his decision is unethical and ethical at the same time.

When Romeo first comes and tells Friar Lawrence that Juliet and himself would like to make their feelings for each other official, he mentions harmony between the two rival families. He says, "In One respect I'll be your assistant be, for this alliance may no happy prove to turn your household's rancor to pure love."(2.3.98-99) He's saying that their marriage will turn their families hateful feud into peace and love. This shows that Friars intentions from the start were ethical for Verona, but not necessarily for Romeo and Juliet. Friar also says, "Wisely and slow. They stumble that run fast." (2.3.101) He is telling Romeo that Juliet and him are moving much to quick. If they do not slow down their inseparable love, will hit a bump in the road and something may happen. Lastly he says, "These violent delights have violent ends and in they triumph die... therefore, love moderately." (2.6.9-10, 14) He is saying that their strong passionate love will not end well. His words are foreshadowing what will happen by the end of the play. He is warning Romeo that they need to slow down, and stop and think rationally, so they do not create a  bigger mess of themselves and of their families. Friar is clearly not convinced that Romeo and Juliet's love for each other is a positive thing, but he is convinced that it will bond their families. His decision is unethical for Romeo and Juliet, but ethical for the fate of the Montague's and Capulets.

To conclude, Friar Lawrence proved that a decision may not always be "The right or wrong one", but can be a little of both. In Romeo and Juliet he did not decide to marry them because of their "convincing love," instead he had the destiny of the two families on his mind. His intentions were good, but he ended up acting unethically. He could have told Romeo no, and let the family feud continue, but instead he married them without thinking clearly of the fate of young Romeo and Juliet. Which is equally as important. The end of the play proves that Friar did not take time to think about the outcomes of his decision. He ended up basically killing the star crossed lovers. This shows that before making a decision, you should think about how it will affect the people it involves. If you don't, something may happen that shouldn't have. It is also very important that you keep an open mind to all the possibilities, and search for the most ethical decision before you hurt yourself or someone else.

Fiction Blog Post; due 2/12/15

Everybody has someone who is older than them, who they listen to and respect. As a younger person you have less power and control over the adult. As the adult, you have greater power due to your authority. As a child turns into a teenager they attempt to resist the demands or rules set by the adult  by acting out in rebellion, like every average teenager does. This then causes strain in the relationship and resistance that was never felt before. Resulting in tension of power. The book, "Teen Angst", by Ned Vizzinni, is an autobiography written from the perspective of Ned as a teenager. Ned is an average teenager, fighting the everyday battles with school, girls, and friends. In this book, Ned Explains his levels of deep emotion while sharing his take on being a teenager in New York City. Throughout the book ned copes with power, tension, and resistance in different ways.

Neds parents are extremely laid back and trust Ned a  little too much. This is why Ned feels he is in authority when in a situation with them. Ned had been caught multiple times not doing the right thing or disobeying his parents, and never gets a real punishment. Usually just a talk or  a warning. Now Ned feels as if he can get away with anything, therefore making him feel in power. Due to this there is usually no tension of power between him and his submissive parents. Ned also has younger siblings. Like all siblings there is rivalry. Both younger siblings fight ned for "Power", or authority. But since they are younger Ned always holds power over them. All in all Ned experiences very little tension with the people around him.

After reading this book I realized ned is an extremely dominant individual. He makes sure that he never feels overthrown or intimidated.  He has a very strong personality. His parents are the complete opposite of him, and his siblings fight for what he has. I realized many people in this world have a personality like Ned.

Nonfiction Reading Response 1-22-15

The article, "Invasion of the Drones" by Patricia Smith gives many reasons as to why drones can be seen as a negative aspect of our society. Drones not only have the ability to deliver you pizza, but they can be used to spy and invade peoples privacy. Drones can jeopardize  our safety, and make warfare more like a game instead of a life and death conflict. Although drones can make some things easier , many people have concerns about them. They believe that the use of drones can be obstructing out rights, and harming the real morals of warfare and safety.

Patricia Smith wants her readers to think drones are unruly, just like she does. She mentions important statistical facts to prove her point. In the sixth paragraph she states, "Last spring a 350 pound drone operated by the Pennsylvania National Guard crashed outside an elementary school near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania." She used this piece of information to alarm her readers of possibilities where drones can endanger people. Patricia also used imagery in the beginning of the article. She described a women sunbathing in her backyard topless. Little did she know a drone was taking pictures of the property next door. The women was horrified to see the picture that the drone took exposing her body on a billboard! Patricia told this story to also frighten her readers into thinking that drones invade peoples privacy without them even knowing.

Patricia Smith succeeded in getting me to side against the use of drones. She proved her points extremely well, and in a very persuasive way. In response to what I read, I feel a sense of shock and discomfort. Now I feel that my family and I may be at risk from any harm from a drone. I wonder if I'm being spied on and I don't know it. Now I understand how drones can disturb people.