Question

Hey guys, could somebody check my essay question response for grammar errors? Thanks.

Answer 1

In Justin Timberlake’s “Say Something” the narrator of the song recounts his internal conflicts regarding how he should respond to issues in the world. He ultimately reaches the somewhat apathetic conclusion that it is sometimes better to say nothing than to cause division. Although the platform of celebrity status is a gift that can, and frankly, should be used to bring about positive change to the world, the failure of the idea of universal morality divorced from an enforcing entity of said morality leaves the choice of whether or not to do so ultimately up to the individual.
The argument that celebrities are obligated to use their position to cause good starts to crumble when it is realized that not everyone abides by the same set of moral standards; you cannot hold someone accountable to a certain moral standard when they have a different one, even if it is morally wrong according to the actual truth. Unless there is an ultimate moral truth to which everyone is held accountable, each individual is entitled to “live out their own truth” in whatever way they see fit. Therefore, it is nonsensical to impose the duty of improving the world on anybody; they should be free to live as they wish if they truly have any free will.
As Timberlake states in his lyrics, “The greatest way to say something is to say nothing at all” because to take sides is to make enemies. Timberlake understands this and knows the danger of “getting caught in the middle of it” through meaningless debates. Although there are issues that must be addressed if there is an ultimate truth, maintaining peace among people and treating them in the right way is ultimately more important than arguing for the purpose of proving yourself right. Getting “caught in the middle of it” has caused Timberlake more harm than good in his life and he realizes that it is perhaps most beneficial to stay away from atmospheres where petty arguments can sprout, and let people run their own course. He, of course, does not address an ultimate truth in this song because in the end his search for the truth leaves him with more questions than answers, and in the end he feels pushed to the edge of neutrality.
Shakira argues that famous people ought to use their influence for change, and yet where is the divide between a famous person and someone who is not famous? Is not every human subject to this obligation then? Everyone has influence on someone, so to say that celebrities must “use their position to improve the world” is to say that, fundamentally, it is the duty of every human to improve the world. This may sound like a reasonable deduction, and very well may be true. However, who decides who gets to be the “god” of our moral universe? Who is to say that everything we have come to believe as a society is not wrong, backwards, and twisted? Without a legitimate, unchanging truth behind all that we have come to see as beautiful and good, revolting and damned, no morsel of moral belief can escape the flood of feeble subjectivity. While Shakira may be ultimately right, her argument fails because she never provides any explanation as to how morality is to be practically enforced. Without the rule of an untouchable standard, decisions based on true morality can never come to fruition.
Shakira’s argument is not incorrect in substance. It is merely indefensible. To hold everyone to a certain set of morals is to either “play god” or to admit the existence of one. Thus, staying neutral at least allows a person to even consider the possibility of a natural and ultimate truth, instead of trying to create one for themself. And until that ultimate morality is realized, it is up to the individual to choose what to do with their fame.

Answer 2

I think it’s pretty good the way it is…just indent

Answer 3

Okay, thank you!

Answer 4

You’re welcome

Answer 5

yea just indent ur paragraphs

Answer 6

U should add an comma after say something

Answer 7

otherwise it really great lucas

Answer 8

thanks guys

Answer 9

I think it is really good. Great job!

Answer 10

I put it through my grammar editor, but, I may recommend adding indents in this.

In Justin Timberlake’s “Say Something” the narrator of the song recounts his internal conflicts regarding how he should respond to issues in the world. He ultimately reaches the somewhat apathetic conclusion that it is sometimes better to say nothing than to cause division. Although the platform of celebrity status is a gift that can, and frankly, should be used to bring about positive change to the world, the failure of the idea of universal morality divorced from an enforcing entity of said morality leaves the choice of whether or not to do so ultimately up to the individual. The argument that celebrities are obligated to use their position to cause good starts to crumble when it is realized that not everyone abides by the same set of moral standards; you cannot hold someone accountable to a certain moral standard when they have a different one, even if it is morally wrong according to the actual truth. Unless there is an ultimate moral truth to which everyone is held accountable, each individual is entitled to “live out their own truth” in whatever way they see fit. Therefore, it is nonsensical to impose the duty of improving the world on anybody; they should be free to live as they wish if they truly have any free will. As Timberlake states in his lyrics, “The greatest way to say something is to say nothing at all” because to take sides is to make enemies. Timberlake understands this and knows the danger of “getting caught in the middle of it” through meaningless debates. Although there are issues that must be addressed if there is an ultimate truth, maintaining peace among people and treating them in the right way is ultimately more important than arguing to prove yourself right. Getting “caught in the middle of it” has caused Timberlake more harm than good in his life and he realizes that it is perhaps most beneficial to stay away from atmospheres where petty arguments can sprout, and let people run their course. He, of course, does not address the ultimate truth in this song because, in the end, his search for the truth leaves him with more questions than answers, and in the end, he feels pushed to the edge of neutrality. Shakira argues that famous people ought to use their influence for change, and yet where is the divide between a famous person and someone who is not famous? Is not every human subject to this obligation then? Everyone influences someone, so to say that celebrities must “use their position to improve the world” is to say that, fundamentally, every human must improve the world. This may sound like a reasonable deduction, and very well may be true. However, who decides who gets to be the “god” of our moral universe? Who is to say that everything we have come to believe as a society is not wrong, backward, and twisted? Without a legitimate, unchanging truth behind all that we have come to see as beautiful and good, revolting and damned, no morsel of moral belief can escape the flood of feeble subjectivity. While Shakira may be ultimately right, her argument fails because she never provides any explanation as to how morality is to be practically enforced. Without the rule of an untouchable standard, decisions based on true morality can never come to fruition. Shakira’s argument is not incorrect in substance. It is merely indefensible. To hold everyone to a certain set of morals is to either “play god” or to admit the existence of one. Thus, staying neutral at least allows a person to even consider the possibility of a natural and ultimate truth, instead of trying to create one for themself. And until that ultimate morality is realized, it is up to the individual to choose what to do with their fame.