Discuss in brief the Expected Monetary Value criterion and its limitations
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Expected Monetary Value Criterion and Limitations
Expected Monetary Value Criterion
The Expected Monetary Value (EMV) criterion is a decision-making tool used in risk analysis to calculate the average outcome of different scenarios by multiplying the probability of each scenario by the monetary value associated with it. In essence, EMV helps decision-makers assess the potential financial impact of various alternatives and choose the option with the highest expected return.
Limitations
1. Assumption of Certainty: EMV relies on the assumption that probabilities and monetary values are known with certainty. In reality, uncertainties and variations in outcomes may exist, leading to potential inaccuracies in decision-making.
2. Focus on Financial Outcomes: EMV primarily considers monetary values as the sole measure of success, neglecting non-financial factors such as social, environmental, or ethical considerations that may be crucial in decision-making.
3. Risk Aversion: EMV may not account for decision-makers’ risk preferences or aversion to potential losses. In situations where risk tolerance varies, EMV may not accurately reflect decision-makers’ attitudes towards risk.
4. Complexity of Scenarios: When dealing with multiple possible scenarios and outcomes, calculating EMV for each scenario can become complex and time-consuming, especially when considering interdependencies between events.
5. Neglect of Black Swan Events: EMV is based on historical data and probabilities, which may not account for rare, high-impact events known as “black swans.” These outliers can significantly impact outcomes but are often overlooked in EMV calculations.
Conclusion
While the Expected Monetary Value criterion provides a structured approach to decision-making by quantifying risks and rewards, its limitations suggest that a singular focus on financial outcomes and deterministic probabilities might not always capture the complexities and uncertainties inherent in real-world decision contexts. Decision-makers should be aware of these limitations and consider complementary tools and approaches to make more informed and robust decisions in the face of uncertainty and risk.
