Siobhan in relation to Christopher

 

1- How did your experience of reading the play as a script differ from your experience of watching the play as a performance? Specify something specific.

2- Who is Siobhan in relation to Christopher? For example, is Siobhan Christopher’s friend, or mother, or neighbor, or . . .? How do you know? Provide specific evidence from the script to back up your choice.
3- How does Siobhan function in the structure of the play?
4- As we discussed in class, Siobhan doesn’t serve this function in the novel; the playwright made this change when he adapted the novel into the play. Some things are gained, and some things are lost due to this change. Think about that, and then identify either one potential thing the play gains from this change or one potential thing the play loses due to this change.
5- What do you make of the “Maths Appendix”?

Sample Solution

Siobhan in relation to Christopher

The play, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, is centered on Christopher Boone and his relationships with his mother, father and the people he meets along the way. Siobhan is Christopher`s teacher. Christopher talks to her about his problems and she reads the note book in which Christopher records his investigation and writes his stories. She is very encouraging and gives him advice about what he should and should not do. She is presented in the play as calm, kind, intelligent, and trustworthy. Although Christopher`s father understands him well, Siobhan is the only one who can really speak his language.

e used to justify the action, and it is the action itself and the motivation behind it which matter. In general, deontology requires people to behave with principles and duty. Principles are the laws that people apply to themselves and cannot be broken under any circumstances, and duties are the actions motivated by the principles. As an example, an individual’s principle could be not harming others whatsoever, therefore their duties are to restrain themselves from getting into fights with others. Principles are not the same as rules, for that rules are from others, but they do often work together. Deontology indicates that it is moral when people follow their principles all the time, and the action matter much more than the consequences caused by it. Gray and Schein (2012) have set an example that in the centre of deontology, lying should be despised whether it is for a good result or not. Corresponding to principles, duties are what people “ought to do” caused by pure heart instead of benefit. The reason for setting these laws, from famous deontologist Immanuel Kant’s point of view, is humans’ ability to set “ends” and requirements for ourselves is what separates us from other animals. He explained that by resisting temptation caused by our natural instinct, humans are set free from the pressure given by nature, therefore deontology could be called Kantian Ethics. If people give up on morality, there would be no difference between humans and animals who cannot reason. In brief, deontology suggests acting on proper reason motivated by principles, and if something is wrong, it should not be done in any situation.

With utilitarianism and deontology explained, now we can apply them to fictional scenarios. One kind of scenarios is moral dilemmas. These dilemmas are full of paradoxes, most include harm to one group of characters and one action could transfer the harm to another group. The most well-known moral dilemma is probably “The trolley problem”. In this story, a trolley that cannot be stopped is going to run over five people. The good news is, if someone pulls the brake, the track under would be switched to aside. Nevertheless, another person is tied on the track as well, if the person making decision wants to save five people, the redirected trolley would kill him. In general, is one life less valuable than five? For utilitarians, killing the one person does not seem to bother them. As mentioned before, utilitarianism is about maximising the happiness. Saving five lives would be more important for increasing pleasure overall. In Crockett’s (2016) explanation, “The utilitarian perspective dictates that most appropriate action is the one that achieves the greatest good for the greatest number.” Although killing one person seems wrong, the consequence of saving 5 lives would make it moral in utilitarianism. In contrary, deontology insists for no matter what reason, performing murder is always immoral and against basic principles. Crockett (2016) stated that from deontological point of view, killing is simply wrong, even if it brings benefit.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.