<p>Is conscience a more powerful motivator than money, fame, or power?</p>
<p>Did Hitler care about his conscience? Unfortunately, many, if not most, of the main events in history have occurred more due to a selfish ambition for power and money than to a desire to keep a clean conscience.</p>
<p>Not long before the Opium War, the British decided to make some money by introducing and monopolizing the highly addictive and dangerous drug Opium in the Chinese Black Market. This was shortly after the King of the Brisih Empire banned the trade and use of Opium by his own citizens because of Opium's apparent harm. The British exploited the Chinese by introducing a harmful product into the market of which demand would never decline (because Opium is addictive). Thus, the British stole money and power from the Chinese, by means of heartless exploitation.</p>
<p>Like the British, slave-holders and supporters of slavery in America before the Civil War preferred money to morality. hte economies of Slave Societies in the South based on slavery; merchants made their money by trading slaves and goods made by slaves, slave-holders made their money by exploiting slaves as reliable free labor, and non-slave-holding slavery supporters saved money by having to spend less on goods made cheaper by cheap labor. Slaves faced cruelty and inequality. Southern slavery supporters were, therefore, motivated more by economic ambition than by their conscience.</p>
<p>Today sweatshops all over the world illustrate that disturbing truth that some people still value money above morality--it is not only in history. Some corporations, similar to the British and American merchants centuries ago, exploit others to gain maximum profit. The sweatshop encouragers strive to see their own pockets thicken, regardless of their labor forces and money providers' standard of living or comfort.</p>
<p>In conclusion, there have been many examples throughout our history of people to whom money and power have been more powerful motivators than conscience. Hitler, supporters of slavery, British Opium merchants, and sweatshop endorsers are just a few all pursue their selfish ambitions a the cost of those they exploit. They are more selfish than selfless because to them greed is a more powerful motivator than their consciences are.</p>
<p>I don’t want to give it a grade, because I haven’t taken the SAT yet and my judgement wouldn’t be very good. Just one concern that came up was this:</p>
<p>Would examiners prefer it if you were to also introduce the other side to the argument (how perhaps in some cases one’s conscience can overcome their desire for power etc…), so that this way you could produce more of a robust and justified conclusion?</p>
<p>No, you should not argue both sides of the argument as it shows your position is weak. I would not discuss it at all unless you are directly refuting the other side of the argument.</p>
<p>“No, you should not argue both sides of the argument as it shows your position is weak. I would not discuss it at all unless you are directly refuting the other side of the argument.”</p>
<p>That’s a note to me, too! I don’t know how exactly the essays are marked - whether they’re meant to be agrumentative or not etc… So I’ll make sure not to give false advice next time :S</p>
<p>I can pick out a few places where commas are needed (actually only two places: “selfish than selfless, because to them, greed is more”).
The conclusion is a little weak, but it gets the job done.
I also liked the metaphors.</p>
<p>I’m sure you would get 5 or 6 though. Great examples – great essay.</p>
<p>it’s a pretty good essay. however, after reading the first sentence, i expected to find more about Hitler. I know you mention him in the conclusion, but if you are going to open the essay with that question (and therefore put Hitler as a large part of your argument) you may want to support it more. whether this is done in the introduction, conclusion, or separate paragraph is up to you.</p>
<p>Also, you have good examples, but from what i’ve found, the SAT graders tend to like a personal example in addition to one or two other examples. perhaps you could tell about when someone you know did something immoral for money, fame, or power.</p>
<p>overall, however, you have a strong thesis and good support. these suggestions are just to help you put it over the edge. :)</p>
<p>thanks for all of the comments everyone! my first sentence about Hitler was just supposed to be a hook. would it have been better if i have used one the examples that i explained as my hook, or if i instead just skipped the hook and started with “Unfortunately…” even though that would make my intro only one sentence long?</p>