In 1825, a group of American businesspeople announced the formation of a canal building company, with interests in constructing a canal system across the Isthmus. This project was to take place in an area now called Panama. The endeavor was filled with controversy.
Though the canal itself was not built until the early 1900's every step toward the building and ownership, was saturated with difficulty.
Walter LaFeber illustrates the dilemmas in a historical analysis. In his work he states five questions that address the significance of the
Panama Canal to United States. This paper will discuss the historical perspective of the book's author, address pertinent three questions and give a critique of LaFeber's work, The Panama Canal.
For proper historical analysis one must understand the importance of the Canal. The Panama Canal and the Canal Zone (the immediate area surrounding the Canal) are important areas used for trade. Even before the canal was built there were to large ports on both sides of the Isthmus. Large amounts of cargo passed through the
Isthmus by a railroad that connected the two ports. The most important cargo was the gold mined in California before the transcontinental railroad was completed in the United States. It has strategic significance because of its location, acting as a gateway connecting the
Pacific and Atlantic oceans. This allows for rapid naval deployment between fleets in either ocean. These two facets make the Panama Canal very important in the region.
LaFeber notes that Panamanian nationalism played a large role in the creation of the canal and, consequently, the cause for the area's constant instability. The first expression occurred in the late 1800's with Panamanian struggle for independence from Columbia. The United
States eager to build the canal, and control its operation, used and backed Panamanian nationalist. During the Roosevelt administration, not only did the United States manipulate factors isolating Panama from other world powers through the Monroe Doctrine; but it committed troops aiding the revolutionaries against another sovereign state. The reason this is a surprise is because the Roosevelt administration normally held a position favoring stability. The United States had no legal right to use force against Columbia.
Nationalism came back to haunt the United States. With the treaty signed and a 99-year lease given to the United States, the Canal was built. Since then, the United States has varied on its stance of ownership and the principles of sovereignty concerning the Canal.
During the "Roaring Twenties" people were living up to the modern standards of society. Then the Great Depression began and the joy and excitement disappeared and tension manifested. In the time period of 1920-1941 America experienced major global events that occurred in extremely short rapid intervals of time. From the end of World War I in 1918 to the Roaring Twenties, straight to the Great Depression in 1929, into the beginning of World War II in 1939, and all the way to the horror of the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, America faced these occurrences with difficulty and confusion. But with the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, quick and immediate responses were made to stabilize America. Among his responses
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
In Scenario II, it is more difficult to discern exactly what an (Act) Utilitarian would say about the morality of the choices made since these choices bring pain in suffering to a greater number of people. The loss of three fetuses, that were not otherwise going to be aborted, would have a tremendous effect on many people. The mothers and their families would experience a great deal of pain and suffering over this loss. However, when weighed with the happiness brought to thousand of cured people, a Utilitarian would say the acts were moral. Since utilitarianism states that in any situation where there is a moral choice to make, the right thing to do is that which is likely to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
(1)Should the U.S sometimes pursue realpolitik and sometimes human rights? In other words, is it acceptable for the U.S. to someimes anything even support dictators, if it is good for the nation, sometimes pursue moral priciples when it can reasonably do so?.(2) I think the U.S. should do what is in the best interest of the United States for example, (3)Just one day after the French surrender at Dien Bien Phu, an international conference to settle the Indochina conflict began in Geneva, Switzerland. There , representatives of the French and Vietminh attempted to to map out Indochina’s future. Cambodia, Great Britain, Laos, the People’s Replublic of China, The Soviet, and the United States. Also with the Panama Canal Treaties and the Chilean Revolution.
Utilitarianism is consequentialist ethical system that focuses on the results of actions, rather than the actions themselves. Utilitarian ethics, attributed to Jeremy Bentham, also argue that humans are naturally driven to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Therefore, in utilitarian ethics, just actions are those that maximize happiness, utility, and minimize unhappiness. Utilitarian ethics also argue that happiness must be maximized for the greatest number of people, rather than focusing on the individual pursuit of pleasure. Utilitarianisms strengths lie in its societal applications, allowing decision making bodies that benefit large groups, rather than looking purely individualistically. It also offers a stronger justification if one accepts the base principle that happiness is universally better than unhappiness. One of the main difficulties in applying utilitarian ethics is the challenge of quantifying happiness. It is impossible to empirically measure happiness. Utilitarianism also opens itself to hypotheticals that yield unpleasant results. Under pure utilitarianism, if it would increase the safety, and therefore happiness, of a society to torture or kill innocents suspected of a crime, it would follow that such action was ethically just. Subsequent utilitarians have offered more nuanced versions of the hedonic calculus and ideas of rule utilitarianism that look at overall moral rules
Promote human flourishing and ameliorate suffering. However, there are two large flaws with the Utilitarian perspective, first that good consequences do not determine the right thing to do. Just because something immoral had good consequences in the long run does not make it okay. A Utilitarian would respond by saying one sacrifice to save ten people. This conflicts with morality because there is no circumstance where murdering an innocent person is acceptable. The second flaw is that it is impossible to live by because it is too demanding. If there is always something more you can do, you should sacrifice all of your time and money to do better for the world. Utilitarisnism should be taking into consideration what it means to be
A common trend in the entertainment industry today is the objectification of women in society. Sexualizing women are seen in media such as; movies, advertisement, television show and music video, where their main focus is providing the audience with an image of women as sexual objects rather than a human. This is detrimental to society since the media is producing social stereotypes for both genders, which can further result in corrupted social habits. Objectification in media are more focused on females than male, these false images of women leave individuals with the wrong idea of the opposite sex. As media continuously use sexual contents regarding women, the audience starts underestimating women. Specifically movies, it allows media to shape the culture’s idea of romance, sex and what seems
I chose them because I found their relationship to be the most fascinating. Though these two a great performers, I felt a lack of chemistry from them. When they interacted with other actors, they seemed more natural with them than each other. They were supposed to portray friends with benefits, but they only physically contacted each other on a need be basis. The scene where George came to visit Callie after her accident, it seemed like Vaibhav was just reciting lines and not feeling them. His movement seemed more like calculated steps than something he was doing more naturally. Though vocally he sounded great. His voice fit the character, and he could deliver very well on his sarcastic comments, and funny ad lib. The only time his voice betrayed him was when he was in a serious scene. He did not quite get the serious tone. His facial expressions in the more comical scene, like when he went to dinner with Callie and Sarah, he was able to deliver slightly exaggerated expressions, while it remained realistic. I applaud him for that, it is hard to be able to deliver that, especially when at some points the joke get old. The only time his facials did not match the scene, was in serious ones. He seems like an actor who is more comfortable with comedy than tragedy. Janina Jaskowiak was my favorite actress in the whole play. I feel like director casted her perfectly. She was able to play the safe, timid girl very well. That being said, she did have a few habits that distracted me from her performance. Janina has lovely long hair, and through the whole performance it kept falling in her face, and she constantly pushed it back. I am not sure if she chose to have it there to help portray Callie as a more timid girl, but I found this habit extremely annoying. All I wanted to do at times was to jump on stage and give her a bobby pin. Janina
What are lies? A lie is defined as follows: To make a statement that one knows to be false, especially with the intent to deceive. There are several ways that lies are told for instance, there are white lies, lies of omission, bold faced lies, and lies of exaggeration. No matter what type of lie that one chooses to tell many people believe that lies do more harm than good.
Utilitarianism is a theory aimed at defining one simple basis that can be applied when making any ethical decision. It is based on a human’s natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
Utilitarianism can be defined as: the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians seem to believe that humans only have two desires, or motivations: happiness and pain. They want as much happiness as possible and the least amount of pain as any other action. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that whether it is right, depends solely on its consequences.
I remember one time, back in high school, I had basketball practice right after school, but I decided to tell my coach I was sick. The night before I had stayed up way too late doing homework and just really needed to go home, relax and catch up on sleep. The next day, I found out the team had to run extra laps because three girls, including myself, had called in “sick to practice. I felt so bad that they all had to run extra, they were probably tired too, but went to practice anyways.
Utilitarianism is the view of considering everyone’s benefit as equally important versus only considering my own. For any action, the morally correct thing to do is cause the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure or benefit for the greatest number possible; while at the same time causing the least amount of pain or unhappiness for the smallest number possible.
“To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie) In other words, lying is a purposeful misleading statement. This statement can be made verbally, through body language, or even implied through silence. Based on lying being well defined, some might say that lying is always wrong unless there is a good reason for it. In that case, I would argue that lying is not always wrong.