A conundrum pronounced ko-NUN-drum is a difficult problem, one that is impossible or almost impossible to solve. Thus, the riddle is an example of a conundrum specifically a wordplay riddle.
You have a lever next to you that can divert the train onto another track with only one worker on it. Is it right to kill the one worker in order to save the other five? Imagine you got into only two colleges — one was a better school with better faculty, but the other has a reputation for being more fun, and has a more socially active student body.
Which school should you pick? Which one would be more conducive to your future happiness? This is a practical conundrum that thousands of students face, in different forms, every year. For the sake of simplicity, it may help if we split up this vast term into a few types. There are many conundrums that do not fall into any of these categories, but the terms will at least help clarify what a conundrum is:.
The conundrum takes place when the actual question is difficult to answer. For example, whether or not you should lie about cheating on your spouse is not a moral conundrum; but whether or not you should lie so that your spouse feels better about the way he looks might be a moral conundrum.
Picking a college, major, partner, or job is a classic example of a practical conundrum. When the answer to the riddle is based on some kind of pun, wordplay, or ambiguous terminology, then the riddle can be called a conundrum. Convention states that riddles without wordplay should not be referred to by this term. We all face moral and practical dilemmas in our lives, so seeing a character go through a similar situation helps us feel more drawn into the story.
In addition, the resources that we use to solve dilemmas — compassion, logical reasoning, intuition, etc. Good writers of fiction, then, can leverage a compelling dilemma to show us who a character is inside, and make them seem more relatable or, in some cases, more villainous. His students come to the prison to try and help him escape, but Socrates refuses. On the one hand, Socrates says, he could escape and continue teaching, thus serving the city of Athens and the future of the Greek people.Peter has no source of income and he cannot get a loan; even John his friend and a millionaire has refused to help him.
From his perspective, there are only two alternatives: either he pays by stealing or he does not. One could say that stealing is morally wrong. Therefore, we will say that what Peter has done— stealing from John—is morally wrong.
Utilitarianism, however, will say what Peter has done is morally right. For utilitarians, stealing in itself is neither bad nor good; what makes it bad or good is the consequences it produces. In our example, Peter stole from one person who has less need for the money, and spent the money on three people who have more need for the money.
This justification is based on the calculation that the benefits of the theft outweigh the losses caused by the theft. In other words, the action produced more pleasure or happiness than pain or unhappiness, that is, it increased net utility.
The aim of this chapter is to explain why utilitarianism reaches such a conclusion as described above, and then examine the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism. The discussion is divided into three parts: the first part explains what utilitarianism is, the second discusses some varieties or types of utilitarianism, and the third explores whether utilitarianism is persuasive and reasonable. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism.
For consequentialism, the moral rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the consequences it produces. On consequentialist grounds, actions and inactions whose negative consequences outweigh the positive consequences will be deemed morally wrong while actions and inactions whose positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences will be deemed morally right.
On utilitarian grounds, actions and inactions which benefit few people and harm more people will be deemed morally wrong while actions and inactions which harm fewer people and benefit more people will be deemed morally right.
On this view, actions and inactions that cause less pain or unhappiness and more pleasure or happiness than available alternative actions and inactions will be deemed morally right, while actions and inactions that cause more pain or unhappiness and less pleasure or happiness than available alternative actions and inactions will be deemed morally wrong.
Although pleasure and happiness can have different meanings, in the context of this chapter they will be treated as synonymous. The morally wrong action is the one that leads to the reduction of the maximum good. For instance, a utilitarian may argue that although some armed robbers robbed a bank in a heist, as long as there are more people who benefit from the robbery say, in a Robin Hood-like manner the robbers generously shared the money with many people than there are people who suffer from the robbery say, only the billionaire who owns the bank will bear the cost of the lossthe heist will be morally right rather than morally wrong.
And on this utilitarian premise, if more people suffer from the heist while fewer people benefit from it, the heist will be morally wrong. From the above description of utilitarianism, it is noticeable that utilitarianism is opposed to deontology, which is a moral theory that says that as moral agents we have certain duties or obligations, and these duties or obligations are formalized in terms of rules see Chapter 6.
There is a variant of utilitarianism, namely rule utilitarianism, that provides rules for evaluating the utility of actions and inactions see the next part of the chapter for a detailed explanation. The difference between a utilitarian rule and a deontological rule is that according to rule utilitarians, acting according to the rule is correct because the rule is one that, if widely accepted and followed, will produce the most good.
According to deontologists, whether the consequences of our actions are positive or negative does not determine their moral rightness or moral wrongness. What determines their moral rightness or moral wrongness is whether we act or fail to act in accordance with our duty or duties where our duty is based on rules that are not themselves justified by the consequences of their being widely accepted and followed.Money, Money, Money is, astoundingly, the fifty-first in the series and yet again it's Carella, Meyer and Weeks who answer the call when a naked woman is discovered half-eaten by lions at the zoo.English Phrase Challenge! Picture Puzzles
Their investigation into her murder leads them into a conspiracy involving counterfeit money, terrorism and the US Secret Service.
The conspiracy features a dizzy array of striking characters, including Cassandra Lee Ridley, an ex-airforce pilot with a taste for better things; two Mexican drug lords who were paid in fake currency for a shipment of heroin and are out for revenge; a Texas Ranger who ends up on the wrong end of a cattle prod; and a book salesman later stuffed in a garbage can with a bullet in his head.
Then there's Wiggy the Lid, a ruthless drug dealer, and the Weird Sisters, two beautiful, blonde assassins. McBain delivers his complex story with panache and real zest.
The book doesn't share the pessimism of some of the more recent 87th Precinct novels and, unusually for this series, it focuses less on the cops and their investigations than on the machinations of the appallingly appealing villains. Money, Money, Money may be the fifty-first of the series but it's as fresh and vivid as the first. McBain took the decision years ago that his characters should age v-e-r-y slowly Carella is still only 40, 45 years after his debut during Eisenhower's presidency.
Ian Rankin, however, has allowed Inspector John Rebus to age pretty much in real time. In Resurrection Menthe fourteenth in the Edinburgh-based police procedural series, therefore, Rebus is nearing the end of his career. Although in this series Rankin loves to delve into the gothic history of Edinburgh, the novel's title is not a reference to Burke and Hare but rather to a group of recidivist policemen sent back to the Scottish Police College for 'retraining'.
Rebus is among them. The Wild Bunch, as they are soon dubbed, are given an old, unsolved case to work on as a way of teaching them the merits of teamwork. But a couple of the team have strong motives for keeping the case unsolved. At any cost. Back in Edinburgh, meanwhile, newly promoted Detective Sergeant Siobhan Clarke is heading the investigation into the murder of an art dealer, an investigation which brings her closer than she'd like to 'Big Ger' Cafferty, the east coast's biggest gangster and the nemesis of her mentor, John Rebus.
The plotting in Resurrection Men is less complex than in some of the more recent Rebus novels but that's fine because, as always, it's the characters that grip. There's a large cast-list but Rankin is pretty much unrivalled at the vivid delineation of character. John Rebus, tormented, dogged, moral, his prickliness repelling those he most wants to attract, remains one of the great creations of modern mystery fiction. Resurrection Men is right up there with the best of this terrific series.
In a slow news week last summer, Rankin made headlines for remarking, as he had on many occasions before, that the series would not go on for ever because Rebus would one day retire. Michael Dibdin went further a couple of years ago when he appeared to have killed off his policeman, the Italian Aurelio Zen, at the end of Blood Rain.
However, on the evidence of this lacklustre piece of fiction, you wonder why.On the show, contestants would try to play a matching game that eventually revealed a series of pictures, known as a rebus puzzle. The contestants would then have to solve the puzzle by translating those pictures into a famous phrase. How many of these five picture puzzles were you able to solve? Let us know in the comments!
How did you do all in all? Would you have made a good contestant on the hit game show Concentration? Thank you! Get the best LittleThings.
Share With. Phil is an Editor at LittleThings. He loves writing and the outdoors. You can often find him at the movies or the park. Puzzle 1 Maya Borenstein for LittleThings. Try to sound out the famous phrase in the rebus puzzle above. Did you get it right away? Click below to reveal the answer!
Maya Borenstein for LittleThings. How did you do?
Rebus Puzzles Brainteasers
Was this one too easy for you? Keep scrolling to see how you do on the next puzzle! What famous phrase is depicted in this picture puzzle?
Click to reveal the answer below! Were you able to crack this one? Are you ready for some harder puzzles? Keep scrolling to see how you fare on the third puzzle.
How have you done so far? It may just be time to kick things up a notch. Scroll through below for two much more difficult rebus puzzles.Difficulty Popularity What Word is represented by this rebus?
Difficulty Popularity What famous name does this Rebus represents? Difficulty Popularity What phrase this rebus picture identifies? Difficulty Popularity What word is represented by this rebus. Difficulty Popularity What Word does this rebus represents?
Difficulty Popularity What two words does this say? Difficulty Popularity What Phrase is represented by this rebus? Difficulty Popularity Identify the hidden meaning behind this picture? Difficulty Popularity What does this Rebus Picture means? Difficulty Popularity What phrase is represented by the rebus?
Difficulty Popularity What does this Rebus Image means? Difficulty Popularity What does this Rebus means? Rebus Puzzles. View Answer Discuss. Solution: Summary. Solution: RobInHood. Solution: Once in a blue moon. Solution: Breakfast. Solution: Crossroads. Solution: Falling Asleep. Solution: Scrambled eggs. Solution: Forgive and Forget. Solution: Growing Economy.
Solution: Side Show. Solution: Once upon a time. Solution: For Instance. Solution: Nothing good on television. Submit your Email Address to get latest post directly to your inbox. Latest Puzzles 08 April. Distribution Maths Question Three friends were having a party and th Interesting Picture Puzzle What can you see in the picture that has Text count the f's Read the following sentence quickly.
Out Of Box Thinking Puzzle n a hotel, a man was sleeping when he he Humor Riddle For Kids How many months during this year can havIf you become a registered user you can vote on this brain teaser, keep track of which ones you have seen, and even make your own.
Show all 2 comments. Puzzles Trivia Mentalrobics Games Community. Fun: 2. Language Language brain teasers are those that involve the English language. You need to think about and manipulate words and letters. Below are three stories, each with a moral that can be expressed if you replace some of the words from a common phrase with rhyming words. For example, a story about a group of amphibians who pool their money together and take over the world might have the moral "Every frog has its pay", derived from the phrase "Every dog has its day".
The gang's all here... again
The hint includes the three real phrases that the following morals are derived from, along with a few others to distract you. Can you determine the morals to these stories?
Three men are deep-sea fishing. The first brings his fish to the boat and very carefully and slowly tries to hook the fish to bring him in. He knocks the lure out of the fish's mouth with the hook and loses it. Later, the second man catches a fish. He does the same, and he too loses the fish. The third man then catches a fish, but very quickly hooks it by the gills and throws it into the boat. The moral of this story… 2.
The woman was hosting a dinner party later in the evening. It was about noon, and she decided to take a nap before preparing the food for the party. Unfortunately, she overslept and had no food ready for her guests. The moral of this story… 3.
The childish raven had a piece of candy and was goading the other birds with it. He went up to the robin and smacked his beak over the candy, but the robin was uninterested.
He went to the blue jay and waved the candy in front of him, but the jay merely rolled his eyes and flew away. Finally, he stuck the candy in front of the pigeon's face, but the pigeon merely stated "will you please get that away from me".
The moral of this story…. Hint Slow and steady wins the race. Look before you leap. Don't cry over spilled milk. Put your money where your mouth is. He who laughs last, laughs best.
Might makes right. Two wrongs do not make a right. Those who seek to please everybody please nobody. Haste makes waste. Answer 1. He who gaffs fast, gaffs best. Cook before you sleep. Crows who seek to tease everybody tease nobody.I n his second attempt to introduce Shakespeare to new audiences, director Jamie Lloyd's production of Richard III brings the murderous king from Shakespeare's winter of discontent into a cold office space in the late s.
But what did critics think of leading man Martin Freeman's transformation from friendly Hobbit to bloodthirsty villain? Michael Billingtonthe Guardian.
Heavily cut to bring the play in at two-and-a-half hours, this is an inventive production that may well, thanks to Freeman, introduce a new audience to Shakespeare.
I'm all for that. But in the end, ingenuity is not quite enough. Lloyd's production looks physically constricted, misses the sweep and grandeur of Shakespeare's chronicle and, in place of the demonic exuberance, offers us a peculiarly bloodthirsty display of office politics. Charles SpencerTelegraph. As the evil Richard, Freeman seems frankly miscast. The great trick of the play is that Richard seduces the audience with his wit and panache, even as he leads us into a moral wasteland of cruel barbarity.
Paul TaylorIndependent. Freeman gives a highly intelligent, calculatedly understated performance, full of witty, mocking touches in his rapid line-readings … It's a violent, bloody production with torture and gore galore ; yet except in one added and repulsively effective sequence heightened by a malfunctioning lift door that keeps opening and closing naggingly and uselessly at the sideFreeman doesn't radiate a sufficiently dangerous sense of unpredictability.
Quentin LettsDaily Mail. Freeman puts his own stamp on hunchbacked Richard. He makes him a psycho of shallow attention span and whiplash sarcasm, a sex pest, a boss who drops favourites as fast as a cat discarding half-dead mice … But that most horrid of lines spoken by Richard to Queen Elizabeth — "You have a daughter", intended as a blackmailing threat — drew a laugh.
That, perhaps, was evidence that for all its boastful zing, this production does not chill us as a really good Richard III will. Libby PurvesTheatrecat. It is fast, violent and greatly appreciative of Richard's black jokes and ironies … Freeman does achieve real Shakespearean power in the reluctant self-horror of his "I am I" speech.
It made up for a few earlier moments when one felt that he'd really be happier six feet under a Leicester council car park. David BenedictVariety. Neither of London's recent productions of the play — Sam Mendes' with Kevin Spacey and Tim Carroll's with Mark Rylance, both of which made it to Gotham — managed to delineate all the surrounding characters with anything like this clarity.
Knowing who everyone is and why they matter creates a far more invigorating dramatic whole and much greater urgency … Freeman's highly effective screen stock-in-trade is his benign thoughtfulness. He must have leapt at the chance to display considerably more range. Lloyd's counterintuitive casting crowns a gutsy, impassioned production. Michael Billingtonthe Guardian Heavily cut to bring the play in at two-and-a-half hours, this is an inventive production that may well, thanks to Freeman, introduce a new audience to Shakespeare.
Topics Theatre. Reuse this content. Order by newest oldest recommendations.