Ronald Reagan once said, “They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right,” (Reagan). One can hardly say he was immoral—he always did what he thought best for America and the American people. However, in pursuing their interests and in following his ideals, he often failed to follow this statement. His well-known anti-Communist beliefs shaped his foreign policy and thus, many countries in the world. The Philippines is one such country. During Reagan’s presidency, Filipino President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, giving himself dictatorial powers for what ended being 14 years. While one would think that the ideological differences between democracy and dictatorships would cause conflict, Reagan instead chose to support the Philippines, turning a blind eye to the blatant abuses of human rights conducted under the Marcos Regime (Moore). He did this because he perceived the Communist ideological and potential military threat to be greater than the autocratic ideological and moral threat the Marcos Regime posed.
Prior to the degradation of American-Soviet relations in the 1980s, the Philippines, as a former colony, had close relations with America. Almost from the start, America declared it’s intention to let it be independent, albeit once it was certain that the country would not fall apart and democratic. However, when World War II broke out, the country was heavily bombed and damaged. America granted independence to the Philippines only a year after the war, but remained a constant influence on the governance due to economic aid friendly relations. In fact, they established t...
... middle of paper ...
...ly a large portion of the American people—believed this crusade more urgent. Marcos violated the human rights as told along with more—the right for travel, assembly, freedom, etc. America, accordingly to their stance, violated these as well, albeit indirectly. However, Communists, specifically the USSR, were in a position to cause more damage throughout the world.
All this brings everything back to the question of morality. Reagan, as quoted earlier, once said that there is always a simple, moral answer. His experiences as President prove him wrong. Was it really moral to ignore the sufferings of a people in exchange for a strategic location for a potential crusade for the safety of another (albeit, larger) people? It is impossible to agree upon an answer. However, as President, Reagan was forced to choose and for better or for worse, he chose safety of another.
The first reason the United States should have annexed the Philippines is because it is our duty to as a country to spread the values of democracy overseas. For example, as stated here in Albert J. Beveridge’s campaign speech he says, “ Do we owe no duty to the world?… it is ours to save for liberty and civilization (Doc B).” He is saying that it is our duty as a sovereign nation to help an uncivilized nation modernize, industrialize, . another example, is from William Mcki...
In my opinion The United States ordeal with Annexing the Philippines and the idea that we had of going into war with them was great mistake and should have been avoided. The Filipinos and Americans were deadlocked in war with each other. This all became a controversy with the two nations in 1898 when the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United Stated ceded all seven thousand islands of the Philippine archipelago to the United States, for just a mere twenty-million dollars. Congress had approved the treaty with Spain, by February of 1899. Mckinley was on the verge of calling for the annexation of the Philippines which brought on a bloody two year struggle. In my opinion the United States was the cause of all of this because of three different reasons, for one our government would not...
Giving them a functioning government, education system, military presence, the United States truly felt like they helped. However, the Filipinos felt dictated over and did not agree to the lifestyle that the Americans
The Nicaraguan revolution of 1979 is an event that many American citizens may not know about. What is likely less understood is the United States’ role in the cause of this revolution. The US actually played a very important role in causing the Nicaraguan revolution. The US did three major things that strongly influenced the revolutionaries to revolt against the government. The US helped create the National Guard of Nicaragua, a group that abused citizens and blatantly disregarded for human rights. The US was also complicit in the assassination of Augusto Cesar Sandino, a citizen who fought against US Marine occupation in the 1930’s. Finally, the US supported the Somoza family, a series of three dictators who held Nicaragua from 1939 until 1979 when the revolution occurred. The United States involvement is not limited to these three occurrences, but these three examples are important causes of the revolution. To provide a better understanding of the revolution and the United States’ involvement in Nicaragua, the historic setting is necessary.
Immerman, R. H. Guatemala as Cold War History. Political Science Quarterly, 629. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from https://learn.uconn.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-762624-dt-content-rid-2584240_1/courses/1143-UCONN-LAMS-1190W-SECZ81-24116/guatemala%20cold%20war%281%29.pdf
From the time of the Spanish American war until the beginning of the Cold War the United States went from relative isolation to increased global involvement because of 1 utopian thinking, 2 business expansion, and 3 changes in foreign policy. The consequences on American society of that greater involvement were 4 America’s development into an “international police power”.
Following the war with Vietnam, America foreign policy saw a new shift. This shift is marked by the decline of containment to a policy of a ‘here and now’ approach. That is, the United States’ new policy was to deal with each situation on a case by case basis rather than treating every threat of communism as a threat to containment. This reclaimed part of the old policy of objectivity in international affairs. As the past shows, controversies and wars alike have the power to dramatically shift a countries foreign policy. One can only wonder what will cause the next change.
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies
Today I will be interviewing Baumeister, Gilligan, and Piaget who are some of the most influential psychologists in the field of moral development. I will be interviewing these three so and I have three critical questions in the field of moral development that I would like each to answer. I will then conclude with a brief summary of the similarities and differences between the psychologists I have interviewed.
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
Roosevelt made the decision to formalize a policy started by Herbert Hoover by which the United Sates rejected the right to intervene militarily in the internal affairs of Latin American countries (Foner 853). Moreover, this Good Neighbor Policy, had mixed results. The United States withdrew its troops from Haiti and Nicaragua during the 1930s (Foner 853). What is more, Roosevelt accepted Cuba’s repeal of the Platt Amendment, which permitted American military interventions on that island. These steps offered an overdue recognition of the sovereignty of American neighbors (Foner 853). On the other hand, while Roosevelt criticized wealthy businessmen at home, like previous presidents he was left feeling uncomfortable and dealing with undemocratic governments friendly to American business interests abroad (Foner 853). Equally important, the United States extended support to dictators with the likes of Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, Rafael Trujillo Molina in the Dominican Republic, and Fulgencio Batista in Cuba (Foner 853). However, in the 1930s the international crisis deepened, the Roosevelt administration had taken steps to counter German influence in Latin
The second reason to act morally is because there is religion. Sometimes moral codes are obtained by theologians who clarify holy books, like the Bible in Christianity, the Torah in Judaism, and the Qur 'an in Islam. Their conclusions are often accepted as absolute by their believers. Those who believe in God view him as the supreme law giver; a God to whom we owe obedience and allegiance. In other words, they think that being a good person is one who obey god by following his commandments. Religion helps people to judge whether a certain act is good or bad, which can be considered as the definition of morality. Most religions promote the same values which are: fairness, loyalty, honesty, trust, etc.... Similarly, McGinn lists the same qualities
James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
The Objectivity and Rationality of Morality According to Kant morality is rational and objective. It is based on
Morality is the ability to distinguish what is right or wrong. It guides the individual on differentiating good and bad behaviors. Moral people make the proper decision in their actions. On the other side, immoral people tend to work against the set law. Morality indicates the relevant code of conduct about a certain aspect. It defines a particular religion or culture believes as good or bad. Religion is a group of people who follow a certain system of faith and worship. In addition, religious groups have common beliefs (Geyer and Roy 2). For example, Christians believe in living a faithful life to please their God. Religious leaders play a better to educate the members concerning what is bad or wrong. Therefore, there is a strong relationship