‘Utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to moral decision-making.’ How far do you agree? Despite there being some areas of compatibility; overall I think that utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to moral decision-making. Utilitarianism as a whole is not compatible because, utilitarianism is not particularly close to religion. Utilitarian theories do not make reference to religious rules and principles, and are more driven by pragmatism by focusing on the outcome rather than the morality of the action itself. In this sense it is a consequentialist theory.
He had seen the inroads made by Soviet propaganda in western Europe, particularly in 1947 through 1949, and believed that American will and policies had defeated the USSR’s efforts to sway elections and upset the Marshall Plan. The Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and, in the following year, Radio Liberation (soon Radio Liberty) became part of the institutional fabric of containment. [5] The president thought that he had learned correctly from recent history, and he went on to the next step of his strategy in the partnership between the public and private sectors: the moral suasion and power of faith. As leader of the strongest power of the free world, he aimed to harness and coordinate the world’s religions in an effort to stop the Communists and what he viewed as their elemental
However structuralists have argued that mass political movements in Germany were on the rise and did in fact influence politics. The power the Kaiser has was overwhelming because he didnt have to answer to neither the reichstag or the bundesrat, he ultimately has complete utter control over domestic and foreign policy. This would suggest that Wilhelmine Germany was an authoritarian state under the kaisers rule, but many historians such as Wehler suggested his own version of the argument which states that Wilhelmine Germany was in fact shaped by the elites (junkers) and the army which simply controlled the Kaiser from the shadows. In this essay i will discuss these interpretations offering the view that Wilhelmine Germany was an 'authoritarian' state under the rule of elites and ultimately the kaiser. Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers.
It is evident that without other branches of the federal government, particularly Congress, the President can achieve little if not nothing. Consequently the president cannot rely on formal powers alone but must persuade members of Congress that it is in their best interest to support him. President Harry Truman quoted ‘I learned that a great leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don't want to do and like it, so it must be questioned whether a president possess the roles the constitution sets or whether his greatest attributes is appealing to the judgement of others. This essay will examine the claim by investigating how powerful the American President really is The President is conventionally the Head of state, chief executive, defender of the constitution. Indeed, as world statesman and commander-in-chief there have been instances, particularly in the foreign affairs arena, where the president has been able to wield enormous power.
If I had to choose a type of government, I would support the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. Basically, they argue that the constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, there was no bill of rights, the national government could maintain an army in peacetime, Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power and the executive branch held too much power. The Antifederalists, were generally farmers, debtors, and other lower class people who were loyal to their state governments. Antifederalist leaders, including Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, typically enjoyed more wealth and power than the people they led.I am sure these seemed like legitimate claims at the time, however, they are really fears unfounded by any proof.
NSC-68 largely shaped U.S. foreign policy in the Cold War and involved a decision to make containment against Communist expansion the highest priority. It pledged the US not only to contain communism, but to take a further step to drive back Communist influence wherever it appeared. The Cold War dated from 1947 to 1991 and it was a struggle of tension between the Western Bloc and Eastern Bloc which Soviet Union was trying to control. The Cold War was an idealistic struggle for control. We have conflicting values protecting our country and the rise of communism.
This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second
In the Realism world there is no higher authority then the sovereignty of individual states. They operate in the realm of anarchy where power, especially military and economic power, determine the order of states and their relationships with each other. This view contrasts with Liberalism theory of IR. It argues that states, especially democratic states, cooperate and tolerate each other for their mutual advantage in trade and commerce and find that war is costly, destructive and essentially
The time period of his presidency was subject to very different morals and viewpoints than we have today. However his ability to refute some of the positions of the time, (mostly referring to the “Jacksonian” viewpoint of politics and diplomacy) have made him an influential and important figure today. Woodrow Wilson was a very controversial man at the time. A man that had very different views when it came to capitalism and democracy. A man that set the groundwork for global cooperation never before seen in world history.
It showed that speed was more important than any other value. The signing statement had a huge effect on the balance of power between the executive branch and congress, it was a direct showdown between the President and Congress because the signing statement proved the president won’t always obey Congress. According to PBS, it was said it would be better that the president say in their signing statement, “We're going to only follow this up to the extent that we think you have the power," rather than thinking they're valued. The OLC corrected their actions by standing up for the law and basically defining the law for the government and what it's supposed to