Abe Lincoln Essays (2259 words) - Smallpox Survivors,

Abe Lincoln History Essay The United Sates declared its independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776. Great Britain did not recognize its independence until, the Treaty of Paris, two years after the American forces defeated the Britain army at the siege of Yorktown. Since the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the U.S. Constitution in 1789, the United States has had forty-two different presidents. Among these presidents, two of the best have were George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln. This essay will prove that George Washington was the greatest U.S. president of all time. There are certain attributes that good presidents have. It is said that ?good presidents are always stubborn and disagreeable.? 1 Along with those two qualities good presidents are intelligent, selfless, hard working, good communicators, good listeners, good problem solving tactics, determination, and they are able to recognize problems. George Washingtons rise to power started in 1732 when he was born, in Westmore land, Virginia on his father's farm. He lived until 1799, when he died at the age of sixty-seven. He served as president from 1789 threw until 1797. When growing up, George received most of his education from his father and older brother. ?When he was 17 he was named the surveyor of Culpeper County, this was the first public office position he held.?2 When Washington was finished surveying, ?in November of 1752, he was appointed the adjutant in the colonial militia. His first mission did not come until the following summer, when he volunteered to take a message from Governor, to the French commander. Following this mission he was brought to the kings attention, and he was given a lieutenant colonels commission.?3 Washington showed his opposition to Britain started in 1759 when he became a member of Virginia's House of Burgesses. ?He was known to be shy and reserved?4 but he opposed the British rules and regulations that they placed on the Americans and protested the Stamp Act and th e Townshend act which in both cases placed taxes on people without consulting them. This was known as taxation without representation. After serving in the House of Burgesses for 15 years he was elected to the Continental congress. ?On June 15, 1775 the Continental Congress unanimously elected him general and commander in chief of its army. They chose George because he was respected for his military abilities, his selflessness, and his strong commitment towards colonial freedom.?5 General George Washington led his men and his country too freedom in the American war of independence. After 8 years of war, all George wanted to do was go back home too Mount Vernon and spend the rest of his life with his beloved wife Martha. Instead he ended up presiding over the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia. This is where he and delegates from the 13 colonies wrote the Constitution of the United Sates. This shows Washingtons desire to put what is best for the country before his on personal desires. This is a quality of a good president. Washingtons days as president began in 1789, along with the ratification of the Constitution. George was unanimously voted president along with Vice-president John Adams. What makes George Washington different from a lot of U.S. presidents is that he as careful not to overstep the limits of his branch of government. He respected the independence of the legislative and judicial branches of government. ?Also, because he was the first president he was especially anxious not to set any dangerous trends that following presidents might abuse. In fact, Washington rejected a movement by his fellow officers to make him King of the United States.?6 Washington had a conservative outlook. ?He made his cabinet with a balance of Liberals and Conservatives.?7 George was determined to be a strong and fair leader of his country. This is another quality of a good president. In Washington's first term as president, ?he added the Bill of Rights to the Con stitution. This was an amendment that Washington knew the people desired. This specified the unalienable rights of American citizens.?8 This showed that he was able to recognize problems and respond in a way favorable to everybody. Like every other new government Washington and his colleagues had trouble raising revenues. Congress

Relativism Example Essays

Relativism Example Essays Relativism Example Paper Relativism Example Paper The theory of Moral Relativism suggests that no principle or value is completely right or wrong; it depends on the circumstances such as the particular society in which one lives in. This proves to be a problem when discovering the actual truth as people begin to think that the truth relies on who maintains it or that the only truth is their own. This can lead to truth having no significance because everything depends on the society to which one belongs to. This ideology originates from Ancient Greece at the time of Homer (8th century BCE). People within Greek society began to come across different ideas if what it meant to be moral. They questioned their own absolutist ideals, resulting in the discussions of the Sophists, a group of wise men, who disputed that all morality was relative what was right and wrong was different within every society. A Greek philosopher, Protagoras proposes that peoples main focus in life was to just get on with it; he says Man is the measure of all things. All they wanted was to fit in with their own community; the truth was an inconsistent and unpredictable idea. Protagoras said that nothing is absolutely right or wrong and that each person is their own final point of authority when making decisions. Moral Relativism is also subjective, meaning that a persons values are relative to them and so cannot be judged objectively. This is important because we learn that we need to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs and behaviour as well as not to impose our beliefs or morality on other people. Moral Relativism allows people to choose their own code of behaviour as long as it is within the law of society, an act may be good for one person but bad for another, or good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad alone. Consequently, we should not ask ourselves whether something is good or bad in general, but only whether it is good or bad in a particular situation. This is a teleological approach, as you are deciding whether something is good or bad depending on what the outcome will be. Thomas Hobbes, an English Philosopher, helped to develop the foundation for most of Western political philosophy from the perspective of the social contract theory. The social contract theory is the view that a persons moral and/or political responsibilities are dependant on a contract or agreement between them to form society and right or wrong is relative to this. According to the social contract theory, consent is the basis of government. It is because people have agreed to be ruled that governments are entitled to rule. Hobbes indicates that right or wrong is determined by the need for people to control their naturally selfish desires and to work for the interest and well-being of the group. He also points out that right and wrong are influenced by what is needed to minimise conflict and promote survival. John Leslie Mackie, an Australian philosopher wrote a book called Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. In his book, Mackie articulates that our moral beliefs do not shape the societies we live; rather our morality is shaped by society. He goes on to suggest that people want to believe morality has an objective truth, but that this is based on the psychological need to try and find an objective reality to base our views on and to give us confidence. However, there is no valid way of proving which moral view or belief is better as moral relativism requires us to be non-judgemental. Mackie concludes by saying that there is no real ultimate standard of right or wrong, which is a common relativist view. Cultural Relativism is less on a personal level as what is right or wrong depends on the culture. Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and morals are relative to the individual within his own social context. In other words, right and wrong are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since there is no universal standard of morality, nobody has the right to judge another societys customs. This means that we should adapt our behaviour to conform with the society we are in as well as behave in the way appropriate to the circumstances we are in. As a result, having good manners shows one has morality. Cultural Relativism is a pure example of the moral diversity amongst different cultures. For example, in Saudi Arabia the punishment for stealing may be to cut off a mans hand, however in this country the punishment is unheard of and thought to be brutal and unnecessary. This is what is known as the diversity thesis. Since, there is so much diversity across and amongst cultures there can be no one true morality. There are many other examples of culture clashes and rules of conduct for different places; however, for the relativist such differences do not present any problems because their own moral code applies to the society in which they live in. Moral Relativism is co-joining with religious authority. Many people in this day in age are not religious and therefore need some set standards of morality. Relativism also allows us to understand other cultures and to be tolerant of them. Nevertheless, Moral Relativism has its weaknesses and many Absolutists have criticised the theory. The Relativist says that you cannot have absolutist rules, yet they are contradicting themselves by saying, You must not judge anybody elses morality against your own, this is an absolutist rule. Another criticism suggests an important point, the Relativist approach is to accept and tolerate other peoples intolerant system. Respecting other peoples beliefs is difficult when they believe that the oppression of women is correct, for example. Some criticisms highlight that according to Relativists there is nothing wrong with slavery, torture or human sacrifice, if that is what a society practises then so be it. Additionally, Relativism gives little reason for behaving morally except to be socially accepted. There are several other flaws to the Relativist theory. For example, some statements are truly absolute, It is wrong to torture innocent people. Just because cultures vary, it does not mean there is no objective good. Along with this, ethical beliefs can change when they are challenged, primitive practises do discontinue. Moral relativism, because of its open-minded implications for ethics, is a matter of great importance; what we think about moral relativism matters. This is a situation where philosophy has a practical impact on society as a whole. It is important that the theory, and its consequences, are more widely understood in order to enforce true morality.