Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Jim Butcher

Quote by Jim Butcher

“We are as the dead," Sha said. "Our purpose is to dedicate our lives to the service of our lord. And, when it is necessary, to surrender those lives. When we become what we are, we lose our lives - our names, our family, our homes, and our honour. All that remains is our lord.”

Quote by Jim Butcher

Work

Princeps' Fury

In 'Princeps' Fury,' readers are immersed in a world where the line between loyalty and betrayal is blurred. The protagonist, a prince, finds himself at the center of a web of political machinations and personal vendettas. As he grapples with his own desires and the expectations of his kingdom, the prince must make difficult choices that will shape the fate of those around him. more

Author

Jim Butcher
Jim Butcher

Jim Butcher, born on October 26, 1971, is an American fantasy author known for his unique world-building and imaginative storytelling. His 'Dresden Files' series has gained immense popularity among readers. more

You May Also Like

“Opposition to animal research ranges considerably in degree. “Minimalists” tolerate animal research under certain conditions. They accept some kinds of research but wish to prohibit others depending on the probable value of the research, the amount of distress to the animal, and the type of animal. (Few people have serious qualms about hurting an insect, for example.) They favor firm regulations on research. The “abolitionists” take a more extreme position and see no room for compromise. Abolitionists maintain that all animals have the same rights as humans. They regard killing an animal as murder, whether the intention is to eat it, use its fur, or gain scientific knowledge. Keeping an animal (presumably even a pet) in a cage is, in their view, slavery. Because animals cannot give informed consent to research, abolitionists insist it is wrong to use them in any way, regardless of the circumstances. According to one opponent of animal research, “We have no moral option but to bring this research to a halt. Completely. . . . We will not be satisfied until every cage is empty” (Regan, 1986, pp. 39–40). Advocates of this position sometimes claim that most animal research is painful and that it never leads to important results. However, for a true abolitionist, neither of those points really matters. Their moral imperative is that people have no right to use animals, even if the research is useful and even if it is painless. The disagreement between abolitionists and animal researchers is a dispute between two ethical positions: “Never knowingly harm an innocent” and “Sometimes a little harm leads to a greater good.” On the one hand, permitting research has the undeniable consequence of inflicting pain or distress. On the other hand, banning the use of animals for human purposes means a great setback in medical research as well as the end of animal-to-human transplants (e.g., using pig heart valves to help people with heart diseases) (Figure 1.12).”

“When Peter renounced the world he grew up in and the people he grew up with, I believe it was exactly as heroic as that of a person who, finding himself prone to violent seasickness, renounces yachting. Hell, Pete was hardly ‘in the world’ in the first place. That was just the problem. He knew more about 13th century Sufi Orders and the Ptolemaic Universe than the rivers and hills and sewers and mills in southwestern Washington.”

“Wakati mwingine inaweza kuonekana kuwa kadiri unavyozidi kujitolea kwa ajili ya watu wengine ndivyo unavyozidi kuwa maskini, lakini hii si kweli. Huduma kwa ajili ya watu wengine huleta maana fulani na ukamilifu katika maisha yetu kwa namna ambayo utajiri, madaraka na mali haviwezi kushindana nao. Mungu hababaishwi na kiasi gani unatoa. Anababaishwa na imani uliyonayo wakati unatoa. Ukitoa kidogo inatosha. Ukitoa kingi inatosha pia.”