Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill: On Happiness and Utilitarianism Author: Jared Ronning Abstract Of the many controversies in philosophy of ethics, there exist few so distinguished as the rivalry between the theories of the two great philosophers, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Kant is often considered the central figure in deontology ethics. Deontology ethics places a special focus on duty and right action. It differs from both virtue ethics and consequentialism–deontology theory’s main rival theory (Alexander). Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that originated with Jeremy Bentham. John Stuart Mill is a famous proponent of utilitarianism, and posits as its underlying feature the principle of utility: “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness, the lack of pleasure. Neither Mill nor Kant escape the problems posed to moral rationalism, but Kant’s categorical and practical imperatives are useful, though not complete, and Mill’s approach offers practical measures of justice, particularly for governments, despite utilitarianism’s shortcomings. PDF file
A Reassessment of President Jackson’s Motivations Behind His Indian Removal Policy Author: Alexis Rodrigues Morfin Abstract For his heroic acts during the War of 1812 and his popularity as an advocate of the common people, Andrew Jackson has been viewed as one of the nation’s greatest presidents. Many of his policies were deeply controversial, however. Perhaps the best example of this was his policy of Native American removal, by which most of the Natives living east of the Mississippi were forcefully removed from their homeland. Under the Indian Removal Act, passed by Congress in 1830, thousands of Native Americans were evicted and relocated, including sixteen thousand Cherokee people (Bowers 95). During the appalling journey, which the Cherokee people called The Trail of Tears, more than twenty-five percent lost their lives (Bowers 95). While most historians agreed that this systematic and coercive removal was horrendous and inhumane, they disagreed as to how much blame President Jackson deserved. Supporters of Jackson viewed him as a pragmatic politician who genuinely acted with the Native Americans’ best interest at heart and who did his best in difficult times to protect and advance the nation (Bowers 97). His critics see him as a scheming hypocrite who shared the greed of southern states’ people and pursued the removal of Indians at any cost (Bowers 101). Frankly, Jackson was more concerned with his own political position than with the welfare of Native Americans and thus was largely responsible for the atrocities and injustices suffered by them. PDF file
The American Revolution: Evaluating its Influence Author: Matthew Melhorn Abstract The importance of the Revolutionary War is undeniable. Without it, the thirteen colonies would have taken much longer to gain independence from England if ever at all. Neoprogressives like Gordon S. Wood argue that the conflict was quite radical because of the drastic change in how the colonists related to each other. However, despite the conflict’s name, neoconservative historians like Carl N. Degler question how “revolutionary” the war really was. Degler argues that because the social structures of the colonies remained unchanged after the war, the Revolutionary War was a conservative event. The truth, as it often does, lies somewhere between neoprogressive and neoconservative ideas. Though the American Revolution did change the mindset of the colonists in ways that would affect the future, its immediate and visible impact on social and economic life was quite conservative. PDF file