Who would have the most happiness (qualitative). However Act Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) would argue that in some situations like war there is not enough time to think about the consequences and so should use the hedonic calculus. The hedonic calculus has 7 elements about how much pleasure is made: how deep, how long, how certain/uncertain, how near or far, how continuous, how secure, how universal? This method gives Act Utilitarians a method of testing if an action is morally right (if war would be morally right). However critics say that the calculus would only help you guess the future and therefore would act on what would cause the largest quantity of pleasure.
There are various exceptions and anomalies that defy the beliefs of both, which is to be expected. These limitations are likely rooted in flaws in their understandings of human nature, which has now become a much more objective concept. Realism, however, is still much more accurate in describing the behaviour of individual states and their interaction in global politics. Because of their flawed assumptions about human nature, both ideologies are not absolute in their analyses of international politics on the individual level, the state level, and the global level; however, realism is generally the more accurate ideology. On the individual level, both realism and liberalism make very outdated assumptions about human nature.
Even though the Brita products are a bit more expensive, people are willing to pay at that price for greater tasted water. Since Clorox is so successful, they have a significantly large marketing and R&D budget and that is where Clorox’s advantage is against their competitors. Clorox can further use this advantage. For example, Clorox can increase their advertisement either on TV or radio to attract new customers and to gain brand recognition. Clorox can also put more efforts on designing new
This could be because a larger member state still want to remain a solitary sovereign state despite its membership with the European Union as it weakens their autonomy and national institutions, for example with the UK. National diversity still exists in a lot of member states. But older member states are also more likely to have larger patterns of Europeanisation as they have had more time to accustom to it. In a paper written by Adolpsen, M et al (2007), they argued interestingly that older member states showed vertical Europeanisation due to the idea that they have had “more time to grow accustomed to EU politics and were more appreciative of the interconnections of domestic reality and EU policy making.” Another reason for the variation may be due to timing of when each member joined the European Union. Some argue that older member states, such as the ones who first joined and created the EU have “had more time to be accustomed to the importance of EU politics and to appreciate the interconnections between domestic reality and EU policy making” and have a more stronger level of vertical Europeanisation.
However, I appreciated the book’s objective as well as, a political statement regarding some realities that seemed stark and may threaten, or undermine, the economics of wellbeing, national security, as well as, the society unless they are addressed in a more effective manner. In his book, Peterson mentions Margaret Thatcher who says that it may be easy for the politicians to opt for the current gratification while they make other people pay the price for the future. However, that does not really change the reality that there is a price, since the price has a potential of being truly terrible. I do agree that the prospects of twin deficits, as mentioned by Peterson, have had some effect on the confidence, easiness, as well as on consumer and business behavior; although the effects have not yet been felt on the interest rates. The main reason for this is that the private demand for the investment capital is very weak.
However, Inglis later goes on to emphasize that due to the blurry line between cultural distinctions, people in modern day society tend to blend and mix together all sorts of cultural practices to suit their interests instead of adhering to a set, distinct culture. While the retention of “high” and “low” cultures has helped the advancement of culture in the past, the rejection of this classification in today’s society is the logical choice. Despite the many mixed opinions regarding this topic, if you were to ask Theodor Adorno in the 20th century whether he thought the previously mentioned form of high culture existed in society, he would give a very confident and pronounced “yes”. To Adorno, “high” culture “involves the best works of art that have ever been produced.” He believed art that is “high” culture is intrinsically better and composed of a better quality than all other art of its kind. For example, if you were to compare classical music against a modern pop song, he would likely hail the classical work as musically dynamic, sophisticated, and refined, while dismissing the pop song with an upturned nose.
Two major dissimilar paradigms used to analyze international politics are realism and pluralism. While they both present effective worldviews of the interactions between states, pluralism exemplifies a more useful and representative analysis of international relations. Realism has dominated thinking in international relations for over two thousand years, making it a significant paradigm in our present day society. In essence, it conveys view of the world as it really is instead of what it should or ought to be. Those who support realism highlight the importance of stability within a nation and a ruler’s need to obtain and maintain power through this stability.
Liberal internationalism Two main bases; The first is the fear of and international ‘state of nature’ Idea that self-determination is a mixed blessing, While preserves self-government it creates a world of sovereign nation states controlling own freedoms and interests, possibly at the extent of other nations. In conditions of international anarchy, self-restraint may not be enough to ensure enduring peace. Two forms of prevention have been proposed First being international independence with the intention of promoting cooperation; (this is why liberal s support free trade between free nations) material cost would be huge in conflict, war would therefore be unthinkable. Libs also proposed a supernatural body/ bodies to bring order to otherwise lawless international structure. Seen in social contract theory; government is the solution to problem of disorder.
As he states, the defensive realism of Kenneth Waltz finds it imprudent for states to search for global hegemony “because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p73). Since the question of power is not answered by the defensive theory, interest shifts towards the other model. Accordingly, offensive realism finds it admissible to certify that survival is the ultimate goal, and power is just the tool (measurable) to ensure that end is fully realized: “The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure one’s own survival. For classical realists, power is an end in itself; for structural realists, power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival.” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p74). That is why Mearsheimer sustains that USA will be ultimately forced to react to China’s rise in the future.
The liberal climate would not allow this disparity as it would have been viewed as unfair and would have been one of the factors in considering the abolition of the death penalty. Liberalism was not only contained within the U.K. and U.K. liberalism was most likely strongly influenced by the same ideas stemming from the U.S.A at that time. The impact of liberalism from the USA to