Raphael Hythlodaeus was against compromise - do my homework for me . Raphael believed that one could not go against one's own convictions. There was, he argued,
"there is no opportunity to make oneself useful in any way if one comes into contact with such officials who corrupt even the best of men instead of allowing themselves to be improved by them - urgent essay writing service . Associating with these corrupt people will either corrupt you too, or if you remain blameless and blameless yourself, you will nevertheless serve as a cover for other people's wickedness and folly.
... For either I would express a dissenting opinion, - that would be just as if I said nothing at all -, or an approving one, and thus I would become an accomplice to their madness. ... For as far as the diversions you mention is concerned, I cannot see what the point of it is. You think that by this means one must try to achieve that the conditions, if they cannot be thoroughly improved, are at least skilfully handled and, as far as possible - history homework help , turn out as little bad as possible. For there can be no question of concealment here, and one must not close one's eyes. The worst advice should be openly approved and the most pernicious decrees signed. A scoundrel, almost a high traitor, would be whoever fraudulently approves of disastrous resolutions." (Morus, "Utopia", p. 47/48)