The general thinking is that if war will result in greater happiness than the current situation then it is fine. However in this essay i will look at act,rule Utilitarianism and also see the preference utilitarianism approaches to war. Rule utilitarianism is the principle applied to a selection of set rules which are used to determine what to do in a particular situation( in this case war). John Stuart Mill (1806-73) created the theory of Rule utilitarianism. He saw that an action had to cause the greatest or purist happiness.
What we don’t think about is the fact that most medical and quite a few technological advancements evolved because of war. Another fact is that, although it’s hard to believe, but war makes countries use their resources better, or at least find better ways to use them. Think about it, most countries try to win wars and to do that, you need to be better than the people that you are fighting, so we use our resources better. Another thing, without war, we might not have certain medical advancements at our disposal; such as penicillin, hydrogen peroxide, and antiseptics. Life would be a lot harder if these things had never been created, wouldn’t it?
The reasons for the defeat of the Whites have long been a topic of debate. White historians have identified superior numbers of Red troops, as well as the Reds controlling 'most of the war industry, and most of the establishments and stores of the old imperial army and navy'. Conversely, Red historians have overestimated superior strategy as a cause of their victory. Even Trotsky admitted that '[although] we defeated our enemies, it cost us the greatest losses. We took too long over every battle, every war, every campaign'.
The victor would have control over the entire Mediterranean Sea and all of the trade routes bringing land, pride, wealth, and dominance over the victors enemies. Hannibal took a 1,000 mile trek from New Carthage, Spain, through the Alps, Northern Italy, and finally to Carthage. Hannibal won most of his battles with Rome, but never got the reinforcement he needed to over take Rome. The men that he had with him at the time were renowned for their loyalty to Hannibal and unconventional fighting tactics. Their Gorilla type war fair or wars of delaying almost saw the defeat of Rome but Rome finally assimilated these new tactics and used them against Hannibal, the man who had taught them to
The claim in the article is that it is harder to divide the English people into social categories, as we always did in the past. The grounds is that we live in a more multicultural society and the industrialisation has made a persons choice on how their life should be more individual, and not something that is destined by your family. The warrant is that the social inheritance is almost gone. The three additional parts, qualifier, reservation and backing is that all the opinions is the same and they therefore strengthen the reliability of the article. If so many thinks
What would turn into a four-year conflagration and take more American lives than two subsequent world wars together was expected by many at first to be no more than a "show of power" exhibited by both factions that would end in quick compromise. But, it soon became apparent that the South would not bargain. It didn’t matter that the industrial North was considered unbeatable with its larger population and its iron factories able to churn out artillery by the carloads. The pride of the South was wounded, and the scars were enough to inspire its men to victory in the first several engagements, including the First Battle of Manassas, 30 miles from Washington
But when he decided to go to the war, he killed hundreds of people. One thing in defense of Private Huber, is that he was correct about getting punished. He did not violate any German laws, but he still committed murder. For that, I feel he is
The German high command halted as the army was about to go for the kill (on orders from Hitler who at times would lose his nerve temporarily). Goering promised to destroy them with the Luftwaffe but despite the intense attack by the German air force, thousands of British soldiers escaped to fight another day. It was a psychological victory for England because it showed they were down but not out. Germany had won the day for sure, but despite the bloody beating England received, she was still standing.
Although I am not yet able to vote I have already asked myself this while coming up with only two answers which are: I’ve decided who I want to lead us and that I’ve gained independence. First being that I’ve decided I want to lead us. If the person we vote for wins then they could possibly affect our future, such as if the president we voted for gets elected then he could do things such as sending our country to war. The president could also do many other things that could either positively or negatively affect our future if they have help from someone such as the congress like signing bills into laws which could range from drugs being illegal to killing people being legal. Second being I’ve gained independence.
The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] | Individual Security vs National Security It is important to work as a whole to cover all issues not just to focus on an ongoing problem from way before time especially if there was no success at that time; people feel the past can represent the future. There are steps to take before a voice can be heard we are the people who make it possible for the government to allow such a thing. The state is the principle problem the left side is only concerned with the left side, and then the right is only concerned with the right, and then there is the middle liberty. My claim is that the people who make a whole is just as important as an environment issue, depending on the case they may be related or not but by trying to solve a an ongoing issue like warfare that is never ending, apply the time and money into jobs or schools they need it just as much maybe even more.