Political Science Syria Government Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Political Science Syria Government - Essay Example However, this was not the case because in a rare show of unity between the Republicans and Democrats, there was widespread opposition to any strikes against the Syrian government, or any direct involvement of the United States in the conflict, hence ensuring that the government remains accountable to the American people. The fact that there was widespread opposition to United States involvement in Syria from both parties is a true statement of the sensitivity towards this issue that the American public feels (McDonnell). In a rare instance of unity, the representatives of both parties seem to have, almost unanimously, chosen to set an agenda that represents the true feelings of their constituents, who are for the most part weary of war. In fact, polls showed that the United States should stop concentrating on the solving of external conflicts and instead concentrate on solving the growing number of problems on the domestic scene. Despite the seeming unity of the two parties concernin g Syria, the fact has all along remained that the United States government does not have a clear policy concerning Syria and this is perhaps the reason why the conflict has continued for the last two years. This conflict has, however, also created a situation where it has become difficult for the United States to deal with the diverse consequences such as the development of the refugee problem (Sly). It is more likely than not that the continuation of the Syrian conflict will create a refugee problem, as Syrian refugees seek to settle in the United States. The fact that Syrian refugees will likely seek asylum in the United States has become a worrying subject in both parties and this is likely to be another issue which will unite the Democrats and the Republicans in a bipartisan way. In addition, the Syrian war has caused the allies of the United States in the region, such as Turkey and Jordan to have an influx of refugees which has created a sad situation in these countries (Araabi ). The fact that the Democrats and the Republicans, despite proving that they can work together, have yet to coordinate their efforts to come up with a clear policy concerning Syria, which should involve the ouster of the Syrian government and president, is most disturbing. The United States Congress should put pressure on the government to ensure that it creates a clear policy that will enable the bringing the Syrian conflict to a conclusive end that will provide lasting peace for the Syrian people. Both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that the Assad regime has lost its mandate to rule over the Syrian people and because of this, it must go. This has been a standing position of both of these parties since the beginning of the conflict, but despite this, there has yet to develop a clear means through which the Assad regime can be ousted (Kostyaev 54). In addition, both parties have found that the continued rule of the Assad regime will be detrimental to the refugee situatio n in the country. This is mainly because of the fact that there will be an increase, not

Modern Ethical Theory or Pragmatism ( choose one) Research Paper

Modern Ethical Theory or Pragmatism ( choose one) - Research Paper Example These theories have in turn been relied upon heavily in determining the parameters of ethical and moral conduct across different cultures and under different circumstances. These theories draw from the ideas of great moral philosophers like John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, David Hume among others. Hume vs Kant vs Mill: Their different views on ethics and morality. By giving their views, all moral philosophers aim at describing the best standard of moral and ethical conduct. However, there normally arises a dilemma on which ethical theory should be applied because of the variations in how different philosophers view ethics and morality. These variations raise important questions in the approach to ethical problems and one of the key questions is the question of absolute good or relative good. Mill for example, takes a utilitarian view to ethics and morality. From such a view, the moral worth of human actions are determined by their resultant outcome (Shaw 32). Mill’s view of et hics and morality maximises overall pleasure by all available means. This means that the nature of an action is not a major issue of concern but its final outcome. This view therefore gives room for the breaking of some moral rules if this breaking increases happiness. Its main advantage is that it allows actions to be judged in a way that yields fairness to the greatest population. For example, it is unlawful, unethical and morally unjustifiable to kill another person. However, utilitarianism allows for the breaking of this rule in the case of self-defence either by civilians or police officers facing a dangerous criminal. Killing one dangerous criminal is less painful that one dangerous criminal killing many people. This action maximises happiness. In summary, this view of ethics and morality argues that the end justifies the means. Such a view of ethics and morality therefore considers the relative good of actions and not their absolute good. It avoids judgement of actions from e xtremists’ point of view which in many cases, leads to the suffering of many people. Its main disadvantage is that it does not consider the nature of human actions or the intentions behind them hence it can be used as a justification for wrong doings by some people. Kant holds to an opposing view to Mill in regard ethics and morality. According to Kant, the nature and not the result of human actions determine their moral worth. He argued that a good will is the only good thing and therefore, the will or the motive of the actor is the only factor that determines the moral worth of an action (Kant 97). This is a deontological view whereby ethical and moral actions are seen as the duty or obligations of every person towards other members of the society. The advantage of this view lies in its fairness. That is, human actions are judged depending on the extend to which they adhere to existing moral and ethical rules. It considers the absolute goodness of human actions hence it doe s not give room for the breaking of some rules. The main disadvantage to such a view is that it does not consider the role played by external pressures/factors in driving human actions. For example, no one can wait to be slaughtered like a sheep by another person holding a knife. The reaction will be to defend oneself by all means including hitting the attacker. If it happens that they die, the person who killed should be let free because they never intended to kill. The disadvantage of this