Summary Of Allan Bloom's Closing Of The American Mind

In Joseph J. Ellis’s book Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, Ellis gives the readers a sense of clarity and even gives the few that are unfamiliar with the American Revolution a feeling of comfortability by understanding the work. Ellis also resists the uncontrollable felling of choosing one side over the other by making sure he was clear when explaining the diversity and general upright character of the Founding Fathers that were trying to create a platform to keep the new federal government from crumbling. Ellis main purpose for writing this book was to focus on the thoughts and manners of essential figures within the Revolution, including George Washington, John and Abigail Adams, Thomas, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and

Larson illustrates this by emphasizing the effects of bias in the press and importance of one’s background/religion. Similar to the recent election of 2016, extremely opinionated and bias things were published in newspapers. Callander, a writer who often bashed against Adams and was secretly funded by Jefferson. Jefferson secretly funded Callander because of his publishing that bashed Adams and the things like many large organizations and news places spread biased information that was usually very opinionated, and blown out of proportion, to try to get people to dislike certain candidates. Although not a tremendous underlying factor in the 1800 election, one thing that Larson explained was the point that Federalists believed that Jefferson was an Atheist, because he believed in a separation of church and state.

The history of the United States of America has often been punctuated by moments of triumph, and also by grievous lapses in moral and ethical judgements. For years, students have learned about the entirety of our country’s history in school. However, a school board in Colorado recently attempted to prevent this from happening. Their decision to alter the American history curriculum in order to promote patriotic values angered many students, who then protested this decision. Leonard Pitts, a journalist for the Miami Herald, openly criticized the school board’s move.

History Midterm Paper Why are today’s politicians compared to the founding figures that built this nation’s government? The answer to this question perhaps lies in the book “Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different” by: Gordon Wood. This book gives readers an insight on some of this nation’s founding fathers, and how they came to be so memorable. Wood’s main point in writing this book is to show the readers how character is of the utmost importance for these different leaders of the new transforming government.

The Founding Brothers were a group of remarkable men who shaped United States history and most importantly, the groundwork of our current government. Infamous leaders like Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were unified under the revolutionary spirit of ‘76, created a country intent on life,liberty, and pursuit of happiness. To achieve a goal never accomplished before in mankind, they created documents like the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land and protect the rights of citizens. This was just a start of the impossible mission and the political debates, duels, friendships ,and negotiations had just begun. No longer unified under the revolutionary spirit of ‘76, we see political opinions begin to emerge, more specifically,

The traditional American idealism of the founding fathers portrays them as patriotic freedom fighters. However, the context of a historical narrative is relative to the perspective from which it is given. For this reason, there are other perspectives in which the founding fathers can be characterized. From the British perspective, the founding fathers were not patriots, but rather seditionist, and insurrectionist. It is even arguable that the founding fathers from a modern perspective could be labeled as domestic terrorists.

The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.” During the midst of the American Revolution, authors and politicians of important documents, pamphlets, and slogans spread the basis for Revolutionary ideals and defined what is known as the “Spirit of ‘76”.

In Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s article, The Coddling of the American Mind, both authors are ASSERTING that the general public uses the use of what they call trigger warnings entirely too much. Lukianoff and Haidt BELIEVE that the extended use of trigger warnings is leading to a degraded and fragile state of mind. As a social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt has made several observations concerning the overall elevated concern for the emotional well being created by the public and for the public. Co-author Greg Lukianoff also has some background credibility as CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Together, both Lukianoff and Haidt have formed an article that poses the question of whether trigger warnings are causing

In this prompt the argument that Morality exists is irrelevant, contrary to our thoughts and beliefs. Everyone follows a set of moral rules. Ethical relativists disagree with this belief because, they believe that morals are distinctive from each individual culture. These relativists as described are mixing up moral and cultural distinctions, or are simply not willing to completely understanding the cultures they are standing up for. There are two different types of relativism Ethical, and Cultural, that rely upon the argument of cultural differences, which have flaws that make the argument unsound.

This is because of moral relativism’s take on ethical dilemmas, and the view that there are a number of disagreements among people as to the nature of morality. An act can

Therefore, different cultures with result in different moral codes. In that case, people should see matters from many aspects instead of having a general truth as the standard. A second reason why cultural relativism has a more logical way of reasoning is because it teaches us to keep in an open mind. This can be seen from the fact that people should respect and tolerate other’s culture since there is no universal truth that holds for all people. Taken together, these two arguments demonstrate the logical way reasoning of cultural relativism and highlight the advantage of the cultural relativism

Relativism Despite the fact that ethical relativism did not turn into a conspicuous subject in rationality or somewhere else until the twentieth century, it has antiquated starting points. In the traditional Greek world, both the student of history Herodotus and the critic Protagoras seemed to underwrite some type of relativism (the recent pulled in the consideration of Plato in the Theaetetus). It ought to likewise be noticed that the antiquated Chinese Daoist scholar Zhuangzi (now and then spelled Chuang-Tzu) set forward a nonobjectivist see that is here and there deciphered as a sort of relativism.

Writers like Alasdair MacIntyre, Bernard Williams and Philippa Foot have abandoned “the project of rationally justifying a single norm of flourishing life for and to all human beings.” They deny that ethics can have trans-cultural norms

The Strength and Vulnerability of Different Moral Views Over centuries of fervent discussion in the moral world, there is still nothing like a consensus on a set of moral views. This essay attempts to outline and critically evaluate two moral views, namely ethical objectivism and cultural relativism. It is crucial to understand that both moral theories cannot be true at the same time as it results in contradictions, contributing to false beliefs. Additionally, it is essential that we discuss these issues with an open-mind so as to gain deeper insights from them. First and foremost, we will be looking at the prominent view of ethical objectivism.

Moral relativism is a thought that there is no one absolute moral code for everyone to follow. Moral relativism works on the basis that each person has their own set of moral standards and the decision to do right or wrong for any one person is dependent on that one person’s culture, situation or feelings. When applying moral relativism to current events, Dobson (1996) discussed that this attitude of moral relativism has resulted in a sort of tolerance in many of our importance moral issues (abortion, same-sex marriage). I almost feel that this tolerance has moved more to an acceptance. Many people believe that acceptance of all beliefs is the American way, however, I argue acceptance is not the correct word.