What It Means to Me to Be an American I have always thought the term “American” was refreshing. I do so because I loved the fact that one word can describe so much and have so many meanings. People often throw the word around without really thinking of what it truly means to be an American. It’s not as simple as most people believe it to be. To me the word “American” has always been connected to the words freedom and responsibility.
He cites the existence of unjust laws and declares that we as citizens should not be obligated to follow them. The basis for this argument is that the government is run by a majority with the most power, not the most valid perspective. This is the reason why Thoreau advises citizens to follow what they believe to be right and not embrace what the government says. Thoreau states that is not a man’s duty to pledge to eradicate all wrongs from his country but that it is one’s duty to “wash his hands” of it and to not support the wrong in anyway (page 183 para13). He continues to tell a story of how he used this method to protest the Mexican American War which was being waged at the time the essay was written.
Imagine a place where you can believe anything you want to, where you have many cool inventions, and have strong powerful men and fighting for you. America is my home forever. I was born and raised here and i don’t plan on moving. I am proud to be an American because i have freedom of religion, advanced technology, and a strong military. Firstly, America has the freedom of religion.
Take for example, realism. Realist IR scholars view the world as inherently anarchic. However, as Guzzini notes, “Many classical scholars, including realists, have insisted that “anarchy” and the balance of power are categories too void to capture important characteristics of international politics…that there is nothing of necessity and that therefore one needs to define the scope conditions when realist expectations apply.” This essay seeks to analyse and describe how some of the fundamental cultural dialogues taking place in the world actively shape international policy, impacting not just on a trans-national level, but also on the everyday lives of global citizens. I will elaborate my answer by using the models of IR and will explain Walt uses the example of China to flesh out his argument: “Take, for example, the current debate on how to respond to China. From one perspective, China’s ascent is the latest example of the tendency for rising powers to alter the global balance of power in potentially dangerous ways, especially as their growing influence makes them more ambitious.
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory for all times, when faced with a moral dilemma, utilitarianism identifies the appropriate considerations, but offers no realistic way to gather the necessary information to make the required calculations. Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question what ought a man to do? It is guidance for government and personal action is based upon the maximization of the good; by government for those within the society, and by individuals. Utilitarian considerations play an important role in emotion regulation. Although the application of utilitarian principles may strengthen majority rule, unfettered democracy can lead to tyranny.
Government has its origins in the evil of man and is therefore a necessary evil at best.” He goes on to say that “government's sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, and that a government should be judged solely on the basis of the extent to which it accomplishes this goal.” Basically, Paine is stating to the common people that they have the opportunity to form their own representation of government and do it in a way that truly represents their wants and needs. He is also knocking the form of government the British have and elaborating on why they need to separate due to their own needs for America. Paine would later go into more depth of the style of government Great Britain rules with. The second and perhaps most important key point Paine was trying to explain was the Monarchy rule
Comparison of Thoreau and Nietzsche’s differences of philosophies regarding nonviolence In King’s lecture, Thoreau and Nietzsche were regarded as representatives from different positions. King considered Thoreau as a supporter of the standpoint that the internal value should have transcended the external, or the technological improvements of human would benefit nothing. On the other hand, he took Nietzsche as an opponent to “all-embracing and unconditional love for all men”. More than King’s evaluation to them, their philosophies with regard to nonviolence also differ a lot. Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other.
Thoreau Encouraged Individualism and Lived by His Own Advice Thoreau presents the idea of individualism in his essays “Civil Disobedience” and “Where I Lived and What I Lived For”. He presents the idea that as individuals we cannot allow the government or the rest of society direct and determine how our lives are lived. He also discusses avoiding minor trivial details and superficial ideas that complicate our lives. Thoreau’s essays allow us to reflect on our own life, to see how truly individual we are and how components of our life affect us and our way of living. Thoreau accuses society for being responsible for consuming the identity of people by preoccupying them with small details and of life, such as the government unjustly using people because they do not know anything different than to obey and conform.
But there is a contradiction here. Use of quotes by Rorty and incorporating them into the essay where they can have the greatest effect and provide the most understanding. The left of America is unpatriotic and very confrontational towards the original ideas of the nation. Heading towards multiculturalism, the left is trying to change the nation. So than why does Rorty say the left is important if it’s running against his beloved patriotism?
Explain what is meant when people say that “we are not free to make moral decisions”. (30 marks) To believe in the statement of “we are not free to make moral decisions; one must acquire the understanding of determinism and to some extent, predestination. Rousseau summed this belief as a ‘man is free but everywhere he is in chains’. Determinism is the belief that choices are influenced by factors other than the will of the individual. A hard determinist believes that one does not have the free will to act morally and that all moral decisions have uncontrollable prior causes.