Josh Mouzer Ethics 25th January 2015 Explain a Utilitarian approach to war pacifism is immoral. Discuss. The principle of utilitarianism is what will cause the most happiness for the majority of people. When a utilitarian approaches the topic of war they will use the hedonic calculus to decide which will result in the most happiness. The general thinking is that if war will result in greater happiness than the current situation then it is fine.
Providing the Confederacy with war supplies influenced Southern power, and their assertiveness towards the Union proved beneficial to international relations. The victory of the Union encouraged the forces in Britain that demanded more democracy and public contribution into the political system. Rather than an outbreak of war, relations between America and Britain were ultimately improved when the idea of widespread famine threatened England. The American Civil War proved difficult but eventually beneficial for Britain, giving them the opportunity to check their growth and rise to power. Keeping within British tradition and diplomacy, Britain never openly partnered with the South and their involvement in the war was to protect their own people, economy, actions and
‘A strong alliance was the most important reason for a country to succeed in war’. To what extent do you agree with this view of the period from 1792 to 1945? When considering alliances it is important to note that whilst strong alliances can lead directly to success and mostly weak alliances are counter-productive, having a weak or strong alliance doesn’t equate firmly to success for either side. It would be fair to say however that not having an alliance has more of an impact than having one does as, especially in limited war, success can be achieved by the side who manages to isolate their enemy from having alliances with other countries, or simply weakening their current alliances; Austria and Hungary both became weaker as they drifted away from each other in World War One. Ultimately however it must be said that throughout the period alliances change in their importance, but they generally become more decisive during longer conflicts, as alliances are helpful to sustain numbers of men, supplies going to them, and increasing the scale of your side of the war.
Paying less attention to armchair generals writing with the privilege of hindsight and precise archival evidence in favor of what the generals perceived would happen in 1914 (which incidentally is much closer to reality than is attributed...every serious thinker knew it would be a bloodbath) offers much more valuable insight into the crisis that faced the statesmen in July 1914. Michael Howard and Steve Van Evera (both found in Military Strategy and the Origins of the First World War) accurately conclude because the offensive was believed to a decisive advantage, if there was a window for a diplomatic solution, it was frighteningly small. Understanding the "Cult of the Offensive" is crucial for comprehending how quickly July 1914 destabilized; generals truly believed their empires would crumble if attacked and politicians were tempted by the notion that fortune favors the foolish. Finally, James Joll convincingly argues that the pervasiveness of the "cult of the offensive" and the glorification of military matters was implicit in a society replete with military
Despite hostility created by Hungary in 1956 and Berlin 1958-1962, superpower relations after 1953 did generally stabilise, as pressures from the arms race and economic concerns pushed them towards accommodation. A key development which helped to ease the Cold War tensions was the end of the Korean War in 1953. The war had produced a stalemate and peace talks had been halted since 1951, however with new leaders in both the USA and USSR extra emphasis was placed on coming to an agreement and an armistice was concluded. This lessened tensions as Khrushchev had pressured Kim IL Sung, North Korea’s leader to agree to a ceasefire, which showed the USA his commitment to the policy. The Austrian State Treaty of 1955 eased tensions immediately between the East and West.
Cold War and its Impact Essay Containment is what the United States and the United Nations used to prevent the spread of communism. Two examples of this are the Truman Doctrine and the Korean War. In these two cases containment was very successful. The Truman Doctrine was a policy set forth by President Harry Truman on March 12, 1947. It stated that the U.S. would aid Greece and Turkey to prevent them from falling to “outside pressures” or communism.
While Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all had the same same Cold War intention of ending communism, their ways of achieving their goal were different.The Cold War was an angry dispute between the United States and the Soviet Union about whether we should spread or contain communism (Ayres 817). According to Edward Ayres in American Anthem: Reconstruction to the Present all three Presidents used some form of Economic Aid, how we help other countries financially; Military Aid, how we help other countries’ militaries; and finally, Military Use, how we utilise our military (Ayres 817). Their end goal was to completely contain, or confine communism(Truman).
On the other hand there that middle class of poor that knows nothing about the system or doesn’t have the resources to get a good lawyer they are screwed completely ruin your life and affecting some people around you. Several contemporary concerns impacting criminal justice professionals are, stress, finances, the economy, their family and friends, health and job security. I say stress because so many things can stress a person out this line of work. It can be the hours of the job, the clients, the court cases, etc. Finances can be a major worry especially if your budget is tight and so is your money.
This was further elaborated by Maoz and Russett (1993) that political disputes among democratic countries are settled through compromises instead of the destruction of the opposite side. Proponents of liberalism do agree that clashes in interests among liberal democracies are common but their solutions taken will not far off from the set of boundaries that are set by each country in dealing with foreign matters. Dixon (1994) termed such behavior as “bounded competition” in which countries vowed to regulate rivalry in clashes of interest in a peaceful and nonviolent step. It is worth noticing that there are non-liberal countries like Saudi Arabia may share a diplomatic relationship with liberal democracies like America.
The strongest argument is that war is acceptable if it’s in self defence or in the defence of a weaker power incapable of defending its self against a stronger power; in liberating people from an oppressive dictatorship or government; finally where the conflict will save more people than it kills. These are the main principles from the just war theory. The just war theory is highly credited in politics as it has been created over many centuries by the greatest philosophers of the ages like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Grotius. For example in the first gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the United Nations intervened in force headed by the Americans. This war can be perceived as just in the just war theory as it uses two