The wise Immanuel Kant in his quote said that humans should be treated as an “end in itself.” One might read this and wonder exactly what Kant try’s to portray in these words. One will never Frist r truly get what he was trying to convey in his thesis. It is important to note first that the term ends is in reference to ends and means. This is important because we must understand the context of what Kant t meant by “end in itself.” Ends refer to people or much better a rational person that is capable of judiciously thinking in the progress of their wellbeing. This said the term “means” is in reference to things, “things” such as objects.
Arthur H. Compton, a well-known physicist, urged the Secretary of War against the use of the bomb. Compton wrote less than three months before “Little Boy” was dropped from the Enola Gay: “Nevertheless, the importance of the problem considered and the weight of the arguments presented for never permitting the bombs to be used in war, are such that I have considered it wise to bring the memorandum immediately to your attention.” Here again Truman is given the opportunity to reevaluate his decision to drop the bomb. The question now is: “What were his motives?” Truman was given numerous opportunities to look at other options, but it is clear to the world, he went forward with his decision and destroyed two cities within Japan’s borders. Truman’s decision was not only based on personal beliefs, but was also based on other mentors who felt using a nuclear weapon was the only logical choice. This decision process would bring back to Truman a memory of a country that had crossed the borders of the United States with an unprecedented attack on Pearl Harbor, in December of 1941.
Jensen makes the reader take a look as to why he or she may have chosen their position on the war and how their decision was determined. This book is a raw reality that asks the question why is it that we at war and is it worth it. In the beginning Jensen brings the reader back to that gruesome day when almost every citizen was in a state of shock and fear. The mentality that we lived in a great and powerful country was altered because terrorist were now able to show the world that when your guard even the worst can happen to the “greatest nation.” That mentality was definitely refuted by the media by their comments on how the response would have to be “massive.” It felt as though America was a child on the playground that was being teased by its not so friendly classmates and they had to show their other counterparts that they were not weak and will retaliate dirtier and harder than those that hurt them. The mindset was that the “United States had been the target of an atrocity, a crime that would make it easy to lash out with massive violence (pg.
During this event Speer and Hitler became close friends and when Troost died in 1934, Speer filled his position as the Party’s Chief Architect. The most prestigious of Speer architectural assignments was the Germania Project of 1937. The plan was based on Hitler’s perception that Germany was the most powerful country in the world. With this assignment, he was named First Architect of the Reich. The assignment involved the design of a new Reich Chancellery and the destruction of thousands of Jewish homes.
The result of the 1945 election was a shock to not only the people of Britain but also the parliamentary parties, one of the main reasons thought to have led to Labour’s victory, was Churchill’s radio broadcast, in which he stated socialism could not be established without a ‘Gestapo’. Source one, an extract from Margaret Thatcher’s book, explains her thoughts when listening to Churchill’s 1945 radio broadcast. Thatcher believes Churchill said was correct in what he said, but his use of the word ‘Gestapo’ was inappropriate, and wasn’t particularly helpful for post-war Britain. However it could be argued Thatcher knew that what Churchill said was a mistake, but as she was part of the same conservative party as he was, she couldn’t admit it. Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”.
Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist, conducted an experiment in 1963 about human obedience that was deemed as one of the most controversial social psychology experiments ever. Ian Parker and Diana Baumrind, responded to Stanley Milgram’s experiment. Baumrind focuses on the moral and ethical dilemma while, Parker focuses more on the experiment’s actual application. The experiment’s original intent was to determine if society would simply obey to authority when put under pressure by an authoritative figure. Milgram put a twist on the experiment asking the age-old question of, “if the Germans during WWII were simply obeying to authority when carrying out the Holocaust or were they all acting on their own”.
Newly-elected president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had set the tone in America when in his inaugural speech he said, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” Seeing as the United States was in a depression, this statement seemed absurd and foolish. He may have done more during his twelve years to change American society and politics than any of his predecessors. Some of this was the product of circumstances; the Great Depression and the rise of Germany and Japan were beyond Roosevelt’s control, but his responses to the challenges he faced made him a defining figure in American history. What did Roosevelt mean by saying all Americans had to fear, was fear? He was saying that as long as the American citizens remained immobile
Disobedience It was 1963, the world was still in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis and what could have been the next world war, and Erich Fromm has released “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” Fromm suggests that all of humanity may end in 5-10 years. While society has progressed to the Atomic Age -with math, astronomy, and natural science fields flourishing, politics and society remain, emotionally, in the Stone Age. New thoughts that disobeyed authorities or long established opinions are muzzled, and change is disregarded as nonsense. Fromm, who is largely influenced by forward thinkers such as Freud and Marx as well as French existentialists, introduces his views on obedience. He points out that, thus far, people have solely been taught to obey, which has led them off track and into their imminent doom.
Schlesinger points out that many came to view the unifying American melting pot phenomenon as an Anglocentric conspiracy to undermine and devalue other ethnicities. Although there was one glaring failure of American democracy; the racist exclusion of blacks from the promise of the American creed. Mr. Schlesinger goes on to enumerate the events which took place over the past half century which, from the springboard of the new creed of cultural pluralism, have brought America to what he sees as a dangerous era of multiculturalism with the potential to rend the nation . He begins with the culmination of World War II and its effect of confronting Americans with their own bigotry in light of the Germans' racially motivated atrocities toward the Jews. Soon thereafter came the collapse of white colonialism.
The ‘final solution’ of genocide was introduced at the Wannsee Conference of 1942. (Nichols, 2008). Most Historians divide into two schools when interpreting the Holocaust; the intentionalists and structualists. The intentionalists believe that Hitler’s intentions were clearly set out in Mein Kampf, early in his career, and when he came to power he and the Nazi party followed a step-by–step path to fulfilling these plans. Historians, Bracher and Jackel believed the holocaust was a completely intentional act, as Wyman states: “Intentionalism anchored Nazi behaviour in Hitler’s and his cohorts' deeply felt anti-Semitism, which they had formulated well before their ascent to power; once in power, they had put into practice what their intention had been all along.” (Wyman, p.419, 1996) Intentionalists argue everything in the Nazi period, was a deliberate move towards Hitler’s ultimate goals.