He also wants the reader to better understand and contemplate how these moral decisions impacted the course of the war and postwar era. He asks the difficult moral questions that challenge the moral clarity and high ground that we tend to view the World War II with. Richard Overy begins Why the Allies
Throughout Nagel’s paper, “War and Massacre”, the reader is shown the distinction between acceptable action’s during conflict as according to an absolutist theory versus an utilitarian theory. Such examples include how one could attack his/her opponent during the course of a political campaign (135), and what actions a soldier is allowed to take when under attack from an enemy (138). The main point in both cases is that the actions must take aim specifically at the issue itself; nothing in the peripherals, such as the candidate’s alcoholic wife (135), or the enemy’s wife and children are acceptable targets (138). However, it is after consideration of these situations and numerous others, along with further clarification of what is and is not
While researching and analyzing the topic of absolutism, which relates to the conflicts between Liberalism and Conservatism, the conflict arises from both ideologies adhering to their traditional doctrine and belief as well as an absence of flexibility by both sides. I gravitated towards researching different influences on political policy and analyzing these policies and political ideologies from a Stability and Change perspective. Beyond this, I was able to focus specifically on the causes of political Stability and Change within Canadian politics, chiefly federal. Canadian politics lacks the inflexibility highlighted traditional meaning of the word; this has enabled Canada to harass the best of both ideologies, beneficially affecting our society.
The chilling bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a hotly debated subject for many in the US because of the devastation they left behind. Two contrasting beliefs arose during the debate: Gar Alperovitz and Herbert Feis, where two historians argued for the opposing sides. Gar Alperoviz argued that there was no justification for killing the lives of pedestrians, and Herbert feis disagreed, saying that it was unavoidable and ended up saving more lives than it ended. Though both sides make pretty solid points, Gar Alperoviz’s argument is more morally and legally sensible. Alperov was a historian, economist, and a founder of the Harvard institute.
Governments typically derive their authority from those citizens that live within the country. Whether the citizens vote for the elected officials, vote for representatives, or in some instances, even vote for certain decisions within the government (think: Brexit), the citizens are considered in theory to be the ones with the most power within each country. Problems arise, however, when the decisions and opinions of the citizens do not align with those within the government, leading to strain between the two “ruling” and “ruled” groups. Expecting situations such as these, the founding fathers created various documents to ensure that the goals of the two groups aligned, and that the rights of the citizens were protected above all. James
William Shakespeare lived in England in the 1500s, living to witness the reign of Queen Elizabeth I and her successor King James I. His famous play Macbeth was written for the King in his early years of reign. King James I was a descendant of the real Banquo; an accomplice of Macbeth who aided in the murderous deeds, which led to speculation that Shakespeare had altered the facts about Macbeth 's reign and Banquo to please the King, as he was a patron of Shakespeare 's acting company. Macbeth himself was based on a real Scottish king of the same name that ruled in the 11th century, centuries before the development of the play.
The introduction to Enlightenment thoughts gave Poles further motivation to reexamine ideas, for example, society and balance, and this prompted revelation of the thought of country; a country in which all individuals, not simply the honorability, ought to appreciate the privileges of political freedom. Illuminated dictators dismisses the idea of absolutism and the perfect right to run the show. They supported their position taking into account their value to the state. These dictators based their choices upon their reason, and they focused on religious toleration and the significance of instruction. They sanctioned arranged, uniform laws, stifled nearby power, nobles, and the congregation, and frequently acted imprudently and imparted change
Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences.
If a situation were to arise where a decision must be made immediately it would prohibit someone with a utilitarianism view to take the necessary time it needs to have a conclusive answer. Evaluating all odds in pressured circumstances is impossible. Moreover, in most extreme cases a group of people will invariably be affected emotionally, psychologically, or physically. If the motivation behind such violent acts is greed, ingratitude, or malice, this theory strikes those as undoubtedly wrong. Utilitarians argue that “when people are motivated by such things, they tend to harm others” (Shafer-Landau 129).
In Rawls’ paper, “Two Concepts of Rules”, he sheds light on fact that a distinction between justifying a practice and actions that fall under said practice, must be made. This distinction, according to Rawls is crucial in the debate between Utilitarianism and Retributivism, more specifically in defending the Utilitarian view against common criticisms, which will be addressed further in this essay. This essay will be examining the troubling moral question that Rawls addresses; The subject of punishment, in the sense of attaching legal penalties to the violation of legal rules. Rawls acknowledges that most people hold the view that punishing, in broad terms, is an acceptable institution. However, there are difficulties involved with accepting
Brave new world - Essay I look at this from a utilitarian perspective were the moral thing is to do the most good for the most amount of people. The individual, while important in any sense, is only relevant in terms of the community as a whole. It is very similar to the question of individual versus collective happiness. The happiness of the most amount of people is better than letting the individual decide for oneself.
The Act Utilitarianism is Judges an act in terms of the consequences
Consequentialism is a theory stating morality is dependent on an action’s outcomes; the most noteworthy example of this theory is utilitarianism. Consequentialism is contested as critics find it overdemanding for application on the virtue of its extensiveness in the individual’s life and reliance on unpredictable consequences, and due to the depth of logic override necessary to maximise happiness in some situations. Rebuttals have been made, and in this essay, I will explain the principles of consequentialism and utilitarianism and argue that the refutations are unsuccessful. Consequentialists, as aforementioned, strive to create best overall consequences for the largest amount of people. Moral agents must aim to maximise happiness and minimise pain.
Suppose a conductor is driving his train and the breaks are defect. The rails lead directly into a cluster of five people who would all die if the train will go this direction. However, the conductor can change onto another track where only one person is standing hence only one person would die. How should the conductor react (Hare, 1964)? Is it possible to condense the problem to a rather simple maximization problem in example that the action is taken, which would kill the least people?
Title: Philosophy of Development Name: Jitendra Kuldeep Roll No: 13110044 Word Count: 1659
