#moral degradation

[madmanwonder]

Prompt

Crossover Fusion: Law And Crime: Police Officer & Thief AU

When JNPR Thieves comes to the museum to get some art... Seras is ready to deal with them. All of them... except Jaune who uses this opportunity to distract her with his magic. In fact he wants them to make out in the broom closet while his teammates are taking the art away. Seras shouldn't... but can she truly say no to Jaune when he continues to pull at her heartstrings like that?

(2-Koma) (Flirting) (Make Out) (Moral Degradation)

"Freeze dirtbag!" Jaune smiled under his mask as he turned around to look at the drop-dead gorgerous vampire girl who was aiming her giant rifle at him, glowing red eyes set in a stern glare. "Put your hands in the air or face the firm hand of justice-"

"You look beautiful under the moonlight, My Seras~"

X-xx-X

"MMmm~!" Seras moaned into the lips of Jaune Arc, leader of thieving group "Team JNPR (Juniper)", her hands on his firm chiseled chest, his large, powerful and flexible hands on her wide child-bearing hips.

She knew that Mr.Arc was distracting her while the rest of his team was stealing away the priceless arts in the museum...but she cannot bring herself to care or stop them.

[immaculatasknight]

Saying it out loud

[mossadegh]

Ex-President Herbert Hoover’s warning to America in 1951: “Our greatest danger is not from invasion by foreign armies. Our dangers are that we may commit suicide from within by complaisance with evil.”

The Mossadegh Project

[blueheartbooks]

"Exploring the Abyss: Navigating Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'"

Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" is a haunting exploration of the human psyche set against the backdrop of colonial Africa. Published in 1899, the novella follows the journey of Charles Marlow, a sailor captivated by the enigmatic figure of Mr. Kurtz, a renegade ivory trader in the Congo.

At its core, "Heart of Darkness" delves into the depths of the human soul, exposing the inherent darkness that lurks within. Through Marlow's firsthand account of his voyage up the Congo River, Conrad paints a chilling portrait of the moral degradation that accompanies unchecked power and colonial exploitation. As Marlow travels deeper into the heart of Africa, both literally and metaphorically, he confronts the brutal realities of imperialism and the savagery it engenders.

Conrad's prose is richly evocative, immersing readers in the dense jungles of Africa and the oppressive atmosphere of colonialism. The novella is replete with vivid imagery and symbolism, from the ominous shadow of the jungle to the haunting cries of unseen creatures. Through his masterful use of language, Conrad creates an atmosphere of foreboding and unease, drawing readers into the heart of darkness alongside Marlow.

Central to the narrative is the enigmatic figure of Mr. Kurtz, whose descent into madness serves as a potent metaphor for the corrupting influence of power. Kurtz embodies the extremes of human nature, oscillating between lofty ideals and base instincts in his quest for dominance over the African wilderness. His final words, "The horror! The horror!" resonate with chilling significance, encapsulating the moral abyss at the heart of colonial exploitation.

"Heart of Darkness" is also a searing critique of European imperialism and the hypocrisy of so-called civilized society. Conrad exposes the brutality and dehumanization inherent in the colonial enterprise, challenging readers to confront the legacy of exploitation and oppression that continues to reverberate through history. Through Marlow's journey, Conrad forces readers to reckon with uncomfortable truths about the human capacity for cruelty and indifference.

The novella's enduring relevance lies in its exploration of themes such as power, morality, and the human condition. Conrad's indictment of imperialism remains as potent today as it was over a century ago, prompting readers to reflect on the ongoing legacy of colonialism and the darkness that resides within us all. "Heart of Darkness" is a timeless masterpiece that continues to captivate and unsettle readers with its profound insights into the human soul.

Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" is available in Amazon in paperback 12.99$ and hardcover 18.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 122

Language: English

Rating: 9/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[blueheartbookclub]

"Exploring the Abyss: Navigating Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'"

Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" is a haunting exploration of the human psyche set against the backdrop of colonial Africa. Published in 1899, the novella follows the journey of Charles Marlow, a sailor captivated by the enigmatic figure of Mr. Kurtz, a renegade ivory trader in the Congo.

At its core, "Heart of Darkness" delves into the depths of the human soul, exposing the inherent darkness that lurks within. Through Marlow's firsthand account of his voyage up the Congo River, Conrad paints a chilling portrait of the moral degradation that accompanies unchecked power and colonial exploitation. As Marlow travels deeper into the heart of Africa, both literally and metaphorically, he confronts the brutal realities of imperialism and the savagery it engenders.

Conrad's prose is richly evocative, immersing readers in the dense jungles of Africa and the oppressive atmosphere of colonialism. The novella is replete with vivid imagery and symbolism, from the ominous shadow of the jungle to the haunting cries of unseen creatures. Through his masterful use of language, Conrad creates an atmosphere of foreboding and unease, drawing readers into the heart of darkness alongside Marlow.

Central to the narrative is the enigmatic figure of Mr. Kurtz, whose descent into madness serves as a potent metaphor for the corrupting influence of power. Kurtz embodies the extremes of human nature, oscillating between lofty ideals and base instincts in his quest for dominance over the African wilderness. His final words, "The horror! The horror!" resonate with chilling significance, encapsulating the moral abyss at the heart of colonial exploitation.

"Heart of Darkness" is also a searing critique of European imperialism and the hypocrisy of so-called civilized society. Conrad exposes the brutality and dehumanization inherent in the colonial enterprise, challenging readers to confront the legacy of exploitation and oppression that continues to reverberate through history. Through Marlow's journey, Conrad forces readers to reckon with uncomfortable truths about the human capacity for cruelty and indifference.

The novella's enduring relevance lies in its exploration of themes such as power, morality, and the human condition. Conrad's indictment of imperialism remains as potent today as it was over a century ago, prompting readers to reflect on the ongoing legacy of colonialism and the darkness that resides within us all. "Heart of Darkness" is a timeless masterpiece that continues to captivate and unsettle readers with its profound insights into the human soul.

Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" is available in Amazon in paperback 12.99$ and hardcover 18.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 122

Language: English

Rating: 9/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[kateinator]

Oh god I am STILL on this—

But man. MAN.

The thing that gets me is that Phil is a survivalist, right?? At his CORE. That stupid bird (affectionate) is hardwired to keep himself alive at all costs. You don’t play Hardcore for ten-plus years and only die once (season 1 was a hard drive crash and season 3 was a glitch) and not be honed to a knife’s edge on the art of keeping yourself alive and safe.

And we even see that in how he treats the eggs, particularly Chayanne!! I remember seeing a clip of him warning Chayanne of ravines— something he stresses in his hardcore game!! And there are THOUSANDS of posts on this site talking about how Philza is built to survive, down to his fucking code/dna/whatever term you want to use

And yet

And yet

The second he sees that there’s a chance, a chance to find his kids again? He throws it all away. He even SAYS “this is so dangerous” AND IT IS!!! He’s going off into the unknown, with nothing but some noodles and a water bucket, because of a book with a little story in it.

There was the slightest chance he could find his eggs again, potentially at the cost of his own life, and he immediately takes it. No hesitation. And he pays the price.

God it fucks me up. Phil would do anything for these fucking eggs, up to and including dying for them.

Up to and including potentially throwing himself on a sword for them.

Because what’s the point of surviving if the reason you’re living is gone?

[therealmofamorus]

The Dark Perverted Corruption (RWBY AU: Clone AU)

“W-What!?.”

Pyrrha Nikos, the four times champion of Mistral Regional Tournament and Mascot of Pumpkin Pete’s and the P of Team JNPR found herself gawking at her identical clone who look at her with a sweet, but lascivious smile that was both warm and benevolent akin to a holy mother saint and predatory that had her paralyzed from the sight alone and made feel like she was in the presence of a very dangerous sexual predator who will corrupt her into sinful indulgence of her lust.

“I said. You and I need to get our Man, to fuck out Nikosussy into submission. Have him filled us with his seed that’ll rape our fertile eggs like a group of marauding raiders.” The Clone of Pyrrha Nikos look at her prime vision with depraved gaze in her glowing green eyes as she pulled her closer to her athletic-yet-voluptuous body. Her hand’s touched the pure, virginal body of her original and sniffed her natural womanly scent with a dark, perverted expression.

“I-I….” OG Pyrrha tried to say something to Clone Pyrrha, but between the sheer sexual charisma and corruptive power of seduction of her clone made it impossible to speak up or make any sounds but a pitiful whimper.

“Don’t you want him to smash our Nikosussy with his big fat Arc’D?” Asked Clone Pyrrha with a manipulative smile and a husky laugh as she leaned closer to OG!Pyrrha face, her pink lips nearly touching OG!Pyrrha lips. “Don’t you wanted to be free of the self-restraint and repression of the desire for our beautiful, manly stud. The perfect paragon of man who will make us his eternal, faithful love slave for the rest of our lifetime~?”

The more her charismatic yandere-like clone speak, the more of her words of corruption corrupted her pure self, twisted and corrupted her into letting go of her moral values and sexual inhibitions.

[madmanwonder]

Prompt

Crossover Carribean: Pirate AU

Sora is friendly with Mulan and acts like she is part of the crew. When he learns who she is he asks if she can help him steal her family's sword since it would be very valuable. Mulan shouldn't since it is dishonorable... but somehow Sora charms his way into convincing her in sneaking him into her place to get the sword.

(2-Koma) (Moral Degradation)

"My name is Sora. Captain of the Destiny Crew. Welcome to my ship." Sora beamed with his signature grin on his boyish face as he led the beautiful agent of the emperor around his ship to the bemusement of said agent who was unable to stop herself from being led around by this odd fellow.

"Fa Mulan. Agent to Emperor of China and sole daughter of the Fa Family." She introduced herself in an awkward voice as she glanced at Sora. "I-"

"Would you help me steal your family heirloom for me, Mulan?" He asked in a disarmingly casual voice as he held her hand and looked deep into her brown eyes with his bright blue eyes. "Would you make my crew rich with your family heirloom?"

"..."

--X-xx-X--

'Forgive me for this dishonor.' Mulan said in her mind as she gave her family sword to the happy pirate lord who proceeded to give her a tight hug that made her heart flutter

[immaculatasknight]

The problem with spies

[shoyowo]

long-ish rambling about farewell shinsengumi and joui war gintoki and hijikata parallels under the cut

there's a direct parallel that's acknowledged in canon about ginhiji's situations in the joui war and the farewell shinsengumi arcs but their situations have key differences

gintoki talks abt the impossible "choice" he was given - neither "choice" being in any way favorable. and ultimately by "choosing" he says he lost both his precious things - his friend and his sensei

the main thing that is different is the trust & support that sogo has for hijikata and his leadership. despite all the bad blood between them - he still cares for, or at the very least, respects hijikata enough to wait for him to make the call on what to do. sogo could have easily rebelled against the bakufu without hijikata but it's a matter of principle and a matter of trust

and idk man there's something to be said about hijikata & okito not falling into the gintaka trap despite the circumstances easily calling for it ... mainly because of their reciprocated trust in each other + mutual love for their taishou

and i (admittedly) have not watched further and can't speak/dissect takasugi as readily, it's still very interesting to think that ultimately he loved shoyo more than he loved gintoki. whereas gintoki, despite everything, loved shoyo's teachings & his friends more. this isn't to throw stones at either character but merely the tragedy of their relationship..

[kindaorangey]

viren starts to use dark magic -> he devotes himself to harrow because harrow makes him feel smart + powerful for his use of dark magic -> they commit atrocities -> harrow has a crisis of conscience in the face of his own mortality -> he tells viren to get to his knees and calls him a servant -> harrow dies -> viren devotes himself to aaravos because aaravos makes him feel smart + powerful for his use of dark magic -> they commit atrocities -> viren dies -> viren is revived -> he has a crisis of conscience in the face of his own mortality and decides to sacrifice himself for harrow's former kingdom and people -> in his final moments he gets to his knees and says "i am a servant". flawless arc honestly

[gachagon]

Also on the topic of Caitlyn Kiramman she's really not any worse than any of the men who do equally as abhorrent things in the show, but for some reason none of the men who are also responsible for the direct degradation of Zaun ever get the same amount of hate lambasted at them that she does.

And I know they don't because whenever I go into their tags on any website whether it be here, twt, reddit, or tiktok there's always some disclaimer like "I liked her but I DEFINITELY don't agree with her actions!!" or "I don't really like her, but-" even if the post is positive. It's gotten to the point where I can't even enjoy CaitVi fanart anymore because I check the comments and it'll be a warzone of people just angry at this fictional woman for whatever reason. Mind you, the show Arcane is filled with a lot of horrible men who do equally horrible things.

Whenever you point out the inequality of how people treat Caitlyn vs Any Man in the show who has done anything bad ever, they just deflect and go "B-but we don't hate her because she's a WOMAN it's because she's a dirty fascist pig!!!"

And I can't stress this enough, but hiding your misogyny behind your very real dislike of actual established threats in the REAL WORLD does not absolve you of criticism and honestly do you think people are stupid or something, and cannot see that you are just using that as a way to defend said misogyny?

No one is ever like "I dislike Silco because his actions are too reminiscent of Richard Nixon and how he flooded crack into black neighborhoods" or "I dislike Viktor because his stance on remaking the world is too reminiscent of real fascists who believed in eugenics and 'curing' people of things that were 'wrong' about them."

No, because they're men so the fandom treats any horrible thing they do with nuance. But when it comes to Caitlyn, none of her actions are ever treated with nuance. Even in the scene that everyone points to as her lowest moment, when she decides to gas Zaun, it wasn't just HER DECISION ALONE.

There were literally 4 other people in the same room as her who all decided gassing the Undercity was the right choice, and yet whenever people talk about why they dislike Caitlyn they go "Because SHE gassed the Undercity" as if it was some decision that only Caitlyn came up with. Mind you, Ambessa was right there and wanted to actually just go in and siege the place which was a way worse idea, which lead to Mel asking for an alternative way of catching Jinx because she didn't want to give Ambessa more control and also potentially kill a bunch of innocent people for no reason and honestly people should just go back and rewatch the scene because I really feel like a lot of people misremember what actually happened.

All that aside, was gassing the Undercity a terrible plan or an awful thing to do? Yes, obviously. But I really feel like the whole point is that the fandom can never just leave it at that, and they have to drag Caitlyn through the mud and hell because her losing everything in the narrative (her mother, her station in life, her job, he sanity-) is not punishment enough.

Whenever a woman does a bad thing in any media, the audience expects her to not only be punished but punished in a way that is rewarding or feels good because a lot of people have a general dislike towards women even if they themselves aren't aware of this.

Viktor turning everyone into statues, creating a cult, and falling headfirst into full on magical eugenics was also super bad, but I never actually see anyone point out how it was bad online in a critical way. In fact, even when people do point out how what Viktor was doing was "technically eugenics" it's always with nuance and a reminder of why he's like that and what lead him there, almost as if people can understand why a MAN would do a bad thing even though most of the time he does good things.

Jayce is apart of the council and also is the creator of Hextech which has a terrible impact on the environment, and he also was literally redirecting what was essentially toxic nuclear waste towards the Undercity which in turn lead to Ekko's tree dying, but does anyone at all ever bring that up or claims Jayce is a terrible person for it, or compares him to actual war criminals? No they don't, because he is a man and fandom is able to understand when men do bad things even though they sometimes do good things.

Silco flooded a horribly addictive drug throughout the Undercity knowing that it destroys people's lives, and profited from it for years and didn't care at all that it was harming the people he claimed to care about most. In Season 1 Ekko literally tells Vi that "Silco's goons have been hurting Firefly's" you know, the only legitimate HELPERS in the entire Undercity that's not being lead by a man who is morally grey? But all of Silco's actions are "understandable" as well to people in this fandom because again, he's a man and fandom is able to treat any terrible thing men do with nuance.

All this to say, people do not treat Caitlyn's misdeeds with the same level of nuance or care. It's always just "I don't like her bc she's a cop" and then they just leave it at that, and never unpack their blatant misogyny towards the only other openly gay woman in the show, all the while they hype up some other character who's equally as awful and morally grey (Ambessa, Mel, Sevika even...)

Man it almost makes you wonder what Caitlyn and Vi both have in common that separates them from the rest of the incredibly morally grey women? oh well, i guess we'll just never know.

[lionshavegoldenhearts]

Are we too self-centered in modern times?

We live in a time where the philosophies egoism and hedonism lead the face of everything that's trendy.

For those that may not know:

Egoism: Self-interest serves as both the motive and the moral. Your thoughts and actions revolve around your personal interest.

Hedonism: Pleasure and self-indulgence are the goal. Your thoughts and actions revolve around pleasure.

*please note that these are not the same; hedonism cannot exist without egoism (self-centeredness), but egoism can exist without pleasure being the ultimate goal

Mainstream social media content subtly preaches the importance to prioritize the self and indulge in pleasure or activities that contribute directly to pleasure for the self. Living life for yourself (life coaches and travel blogs), self-care (skin/hair/nail/etc. -care girlies), discipline for the sake of self-betterment (gym bros), moral validation (same-belief political discourse), and beauty & fashion (self-explanatory) all seem to make up the overwhelming majority of social media content aside from news.

There are, of course, other facets of the internet where this is not the direct message. A good example is the recent rise of the "nuclear family trad-wife." One would think that the goal is to be subservient and show submission and compassion for the family, but who is truly being validated by "performing" well? The wife. The pleasure of the family and the wife, as well as the satisfaction of success, can still be linked back to egoism and/or hedonism.

These values can also be found outside of the realm of the internet. People act in the best interest of their self All The Time, and it's not an inherently bad thing. Caring for yourself and your state of being is survival. It's commonplace, and so natural that we don't even think of it most of the time. We eat and drink to sustain life. We make choices in our youth that are either for the sake of our future or our own desires in the moment (high school). Even something as small as readjusting your sitting position to be more comfortable is acting in the best interest of the self. These, of course, are not examples of egoism and hedonism, because that's determined by bigger, fully conscious decisions. The point is that it's important and a good thing to look out for oneself; it's human nature at the core. If you or a someone you know is seriously struggling with this concept, please consider seeking help for you or that person.

*Suicide and Crisis Lifeline: 988

If self-centeredness and pleasure-seeking is key to enjoyment and survival of life, then when does it become a problem?

Humans are social creatures. We have constructed a society where it is nearly impossible to live without impacting and interacting with others in some way, even if you live off the grid. I'm not just talking about the Butterfly Effect either. Even our choices to avoid interacting with others will impact the outcomes of their situations. These are represented through phenomena like the bystander effect, neglecting to vote in elections, inaction leading to someone's death, not crashing a wedding, not returning calls, not getting in someone's way, etc.

When we make decisions in our own best interest or in the name of pleasure, we have the ability to cause harm towards others. I don't need to explain further or give examples for that claim be true.

However, that is not the kind of interaction I'm talking about.

There is this group of ideas: "I did not ask to be born in this world, therefore I owe nothing to the people that inhabit it." "I'm not responsible for what happens to other people; that's their business, not mine." "I should not have to go out of my way for the sake of others, as I'm not debted to anybody."

Before I get yelled at, I promise I'm not a boomer trying to complain about 'kids these days' refusing to work or go the extra mile. I'm one of y'all, I swear 😔.

Now, before folks get upset, I'm not saying there's anything straight up wrong or "incorrect" about those statements. With that being said, I'm not explicitly agreeing with them either.

I'm saying that these ideas can be potentially dangerous when applied to everything.

When we devalue compassion and empathy for others, people get hurt. It sounds a lot like "Well yeah, you don't have to go out of your way to xyz, but are you responsible for the effects caused by your lack of action?"

We don't have to be polite, other people choose how they react to my words. We don't have to make all places accessible and welcome, nobody's entitled to be there. We don't have to out people as dishonest to others, because that's not our business. We don't have to tip or donate to the less fortunate, even if we live comfortably enough to do so without any issue. We don't have to respect the people that disagree with us as equal individuals, sometimes their wrongfulness means they have less worth than us. We don't have to move for anybody, and we don't have to share our space because that's their responsibility. I don't owe it to anybody to be kind, because the world doesn't deserve my forgiveness after what it's done to me.

These are examples of the sort of reasoning I see most often. These ideas can come from all kinds of people. There's a harshness to the truth in them. Realistically, we don't have to do anything at all. It is true that no other person is entitled to the services you provide. That is a fact that I will never dispute. I'm also not saying that these statements are morally incorrect.

The problem arises when large groups of people with influence believe in these things. Of course we don't need to have compassion and empathy for others, but when people that hold ANY kind of major power over the outcomes of others' situations believe this, it's dangerous. I'm talking about both rich/influential people AND average joes.

I'm talking about the bystanders that were there to witness me getting textbook bullied from elementary school up to my freshman year of high school. They did not owe me anything. They didn't have to intervene, because my personal wellbeing is nobody's responsibility but my own. Do I still resent them for watching me without a shred of sympathy? It's complicated. Those people (kids AND adults) are not bad people for standing off to the side. They caused me no direct harm, and they didn't bully me.

I'm not seeking attention or sympathy, I swear. Just using my experience to communicate my thoughts.

This story sounds biased, and it probably is, but it's still true that they were under no obligation to help me (except for some of the adults, lol). Of course it would have been nice, but that is their decision to make.

The people that watched are good to me now. They were good to me then, just not in the moments that I got bullied, which were unfortunately often. They weren't bad people in those moments, just absent: bystanders looking out for themselves.

Now imagine these scenarios: Sometimes, the bystander is also the bully. Sometimes, there is no obvious bully. Sometimes, the bystanders are not good people at all. Sometimes, the bystanders are bystanders ALL the time. Sometimes, the victim is a bad person. Sometimes, the bully is always good when they're not actively bullying the victim. Sometimes, the bully is life.

The question lies in where we as a society draw the line.

Where is it morally unacceptable to watch from afar without intervention?

Is it wrong to be focused on your own interest rather than the interests of other humans?

If this can be true on any level, are we all bystanders at some point in our lives?

Are we even capable of being egotists and hedonists without directly harming others in some way?

Or

Is this a passing trend?

Will there be a time and place where people focus more on the community rather than the individual? Or is compassion fading away for the better of the individual man?

Also if this was hard to read, it's cause I'm tired and too lazy to edit. Quite... egoist and hedonist of me... 😏

[apostate-in-an-alcove]

Christians really have their heads up their own asses. The pompous self-importance in this statement alone is unbelievable. Christianity doesn't own the monopoly on morality and ethics although Christians certainly deluded themselves into thinking they do.

[piyesis-art]

First sketch of Gakushuu as Spider-Man:

Just some doodles of trying to figure out the au :) also give me some suggestions on what color his suit would be

More Stuff:

Gakushuu got bit by Koyama's spider which was one of his experiments that escaped from his home-made lab

The big five had a meeting when they found out Gakushuu was bit so they got Gakushuu to do tests on himself whether it did anything to him. (ex: throwing things at him and seeing if it did anything)

Gakushuu became a hero mostly because he didn't want a guilty conscience If he didn't help someone when he could

Ren and araki made his suit after Gakushuu almost blew his cover by barely covering his face

He thinks the suit makes him look silly but he wears it anyway.

He combines the suit with casual clothes but Ren picks the clothes for him because he thinks wearing preppy clothes won't look cool on him

[captncthrola]

the casting parallel of Willabella & Grace Chasity

just rewatched Episode 3 of NT (harrowing to say the least), and whilst also recovering very important the Fosters and general Hatchetfield lore, i also just realised Angela played Willabella Muckwab, who seems kind of set-up to be this witch that did actually hurt people but might have been an outcast herself. so here's some thematic character thoughts that just rang true bcus i love Angela Giarratana, Hatchetfield and Grace Chasity lmao. the dramatic person in me is so set for some sort of Grace recognition-maybe-even-redemption-of-humanity arc, because shame and stigma from the church is so real and i think the Lords in Black enabled not only her superiority complex but her shame by corrupting her with the Black Book. rewatching the Witch in the Web, Willabella says "I'm not a monster, like they said!" and we even get a glimpse of her previous life where she was about to be hung (though we don't know for what crimes), and in this damn podunk town ironically tearing itself apart trying to keep itself together + classic references to the Salem witch trials (of which was mainly condemning women / people breaking any social rules) + gifted kid g*nocide??????, it feels like it could be highly probable she was another example of a hurt, shamed person refusing to change and enabled by forces beyond her initial reckoning, because she couldn't or refused to recognise anything else good beyond her own world. it just was such an unintentional connection yet is fascinating to me. oh and also just realised Kim Whalen as both Becky and Ms. Holloway playing almost the complete opposite of all that (person who experienced great pain and suffering usually trying to do a great deal of good).