The Impact of the Iroquois Confederacy on the Creation of the United St

"One arrow is easily broken, but tied together, no man can break the bundle." -Peacemaker This philosophy was at the core of the powerful Iroquois League of Five Nations. The League of Five Nations, or Iroquois Confederacy as it is more commonly called, was a thriving and well-functioning form of government very similar to that of the United States Government. Hundreds of years before "civilized" man arrived in the New World -- historians think as early as 1400 A.D.-- the Iroquois had created a radically new and well-organized form of government unlike any other before it. This new form of government was the idea of two peaceful men named Hiawatha and Deganawida (McClard 47). Hiawatha and Deganawida realized that the five Iroquois tribes were constantly fighting with one another resulting in many innocent deaths and ongoing tribal wars. As a solution to the constant stream of violence between the Iroquois people, they proposed a union between the five tribes that would make the Iroquois nation as a whole stronger and more powerful, while uniting their "brothers" together in friendship. The Iroquois Confederacy was a lasting union between the five Iroquois tribes: the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. This union of five Iroquois tribes would prove to have a great deal of impact on the founding fathers of the United States. The grounding principles of unity, freedom of the people, and democracy that defined the Iroquois Confederacy very much impressed certain men who were charged with designing the new government of the United States. By the time the Europeans arrived in America, the League was already hundreds of years old (McClard 75) and running just as smoothly as when Hiawatha and Deganawida created it so man... ...on, 1988. 2. Fradin, Dennis Brindell. Hiawatha: Messenger of Peace. New York, NY: Maxwell Macmillian International, 1992. 3. Graymont, Barbara. Indians of North America: The Iroquois. New York, NY: Chelsea House Publishers, 1988. 4. Malkus, Alida Sims. There Really was a Hiawatha. New York, NY: Grosset & Dunlap, 1963. 5. McClard, Megan and Ypsilantis, George. Hiawatha and the Iroquois League. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Silver Burdett Press, 1989. 6. Phillips, Martin. The Constitutional Convention. Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett Company, 1985. 7. Sneve, Virginia Driving Hawk. The Iroquois. New York, New York: Holiday House, 1995. 8. Yenne, Bill and Garratt, Susan. North American Indians. Secaucus, NJ: Chartwell Books, Incorperated, 1984. 9. Zimmerman, Larry J. and Molyneaux, Brian Leigh. Native North America. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1996. The Impact of the Iroquois Confederacy on the Creation of the United St "One arrow is easily broken, but tied together, no man can break the bundle." -Peacemaker This philosophy was at the core of the powerful Iroquois League of Five Nations. The League of Five Nations, or Iroquois Confederacy as it is more commonly called, was a thriving and well-functioning form of government very similar to that of the United States Government. Hundreds of years before "civilized" man arrived in the New World -- historians think as early as 1400 A.D.-- the Iroquois had created a radically new and well-organized form of government unlike any other before it. This new form of government was the idea of two peaceful men named Hiawatha and Deganawida (McClard 47). Hiawatha and Deganawida realized that the five Iroquois tribes were constantly fighting with one another resulting in many innocent deaths and ongoing tribal wars. As a solution to the constant stream of violence between the Iroquois people, they proposed a union between the five tribes that would make the Iroquois nation as a whole stronger and more powerful, while uniting their "brothers" together in friendship. The Iroquois Confederacy was a lasting union between the five Iroquois tribes: the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. This union of five Iroquois tribes would prove to have a great deal of impact on the founding fathers of the United States. The grounding principles of unity, freedom of the people, and democracy that defined the Iroquois Confederacy very much impressed certain men who were charged with designing the new government of the United States. By the time the Europeans arrived in America, the League was already hundreds of years old (McClard 75) and running just as smoothly as when Hiawatha and Deganawida created it so man... ...on, 1988. 2. Fradin, Dennis Brindell. Hiawatha: Messenger of Peace. New York, NY: Maxwell Macmillian International, 1992. 3. Graymont, Barbara. Indians of North America: The Iroquois. New York, NY: Chelsea House Publishers, 1988. 4. Malkus, Alida Sims. There Really was a Hiawatha. New York, NY: Grosset & Dunlap, 1963. 5. McClard, Megan and Ypsilantis, George. Hiawatha and the Iroquois League. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Silver Burdett Press, 1989. 6. Phillips, Martin. The Constitutional Convention. Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett Company, 1985. 7. Sneve, Virginia Driving Hawk. The Iroquois. New York, New York: Holiday House, 1995. 8. Yenne, Bill and Garratt, Susan. North American Indians. Secaucus, NJ: Chartwell Books, Incorperated, 1984. 9. Zimmerman, Larry J. and Molyneaux, Brian Leigh. Native North America. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1996.

The global environment

The protection of the planetary environment has become one of the cardinal aims of the international community in recent decennaries. The major environmental issues such as clime alteration, ozone depletion, deforestation acid rain and loss of biodiversity are planetary in range. [ 1 ] Climate alteration is a planetary long-run job ( up to several centuries ) that involves complex interactions with environmental, economic, political, institutional, societal and technological procedures. The international community has taken legal stairss to battle clime alteration. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ; the Kyoto Protocol and other clime related instruments are all legal instruments which target clime alteration extenuation. These legal instruments have created a differentiation in footings of duties and duties between the developed and the development states through the rule of common but differentiated duties. [ 2 ] The rule of common but differentiated duty has developed from the application of equity in general international jurisprudence for the particular demands of developing states which must be taken into history in the development, application and reading of regulations of international environmental jurisprudence. [ 3 ] The Framework Convention on Climate Change ( Climate Convention ) ,1 signed at the 1992 United Nations â€Å" Earth Acme † in Rio de Janeiro, is the first international legal instrument to turn to clime alteration and is arguably the most comprehensive international effort to turn to inauspicious alterations to the planetary environment.Principle 7 [ 4 ]States shall collaborate in a spirit of planetary partnership to conserve, protect and reconstruct the wellness and unity of the Earth ‘s ecosystem. In position of the different parts to planetary environmental debasement, States have common but differentiated duties. The developed states acknowledge the duty that they bear in the international chase of sustainable development in position of the force per unit areas their societies place on the planetary environment and of the engineerings and fiscal resources they command. he overruling end of the Convention is the â€Å" stabilisation of nursery gas concentrations in the ambiance at a degree that would forestall unsafe anthropogenetic intervention ith the clime system. â€Å" [ 5 ] The rule of common but differentiated duties, one of the cardinal constructs of sustainable development, has double foundation ; the force per unit areas developed states topographic point on the planetary environment ; and the engineerings and fiscal resources they command. Though the developed states are loath to acknowledge the first foundation, the developing states have a strong purchase to bring on the former to accept differentiated intervention in their favour. [ 7 ] The contemplation of this rule takes two signifiers: one is â€Å" dual criterions † in environmental protection criterions every bit good as their execution in favour of developing states ; and the other is assistance by developed states for sustainable development of developing states. The impression of common but differentiated duty is comprised of two distinguishable yet mutualist constituents: ( 1 ) common duty and ; ( 2 ) differentiated duty. The first represents the shared duties of two or more States when the inquiry of protection of a specific environmental resource is raised. [ 8 ] The 2nd relates to distinguish environmental criterions which are articulated around legion factors such as particular demands and fortunes, future economic development of states, and the historic part of a state or group of states to the creative activity of an environmental job.Article 10 Kyoto protocol [ 9 ]All Parties, taking into account their common but differentiated duties and their specific national and regional development precedences, aims and fortunes, without presenting any new committednesss for Parties non included in Annex I, but reaffirming bing committednesss under Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and go oning to progress the execution of these committ ednesss in order to accomplish sustainable development, taking into history Article 4, paragraphs 3, 5 and 7, of the Convention, shall:Formulate, where relevant and to the extent possible, cost-efficient national and, where appropriate, regional programmes to better the quality of local emanation factors, activity informations and/or theoretical accounts which reflect the socio-economic conditions of each Party for the readying and periodic updating of national stock lists of anthropogenetic emanations by beginnings and remotions by sinks of all nursery gases non controlled by the Montreal Protocol, utilizing comparable methodological analysiss to be agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties, and consistent with the guidelines for the readying of national communications adopted by the Conference of the Parties ;F CDBR is illustration of emerging perceptual experiences of equity.Duncan French ( 2000 ) . Developing States and International Environmental Law: The Importance of Diffe rentiated Responsibilities.International & A ; Comparative Law Quarterly,49, pp 35-60 doi:10.1017/S0020589300063958Mustapher, Ntale, Rethinking the Application of the Principle of ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities ‘ in the International Climate Legal Framework ( December 6, 2008 ) . Available at SSRN: hypertext transfer protocol: //ssrn.com/abstract=1312282Bharat Agarwal, The Principle Of Common But Differentiated Responsibility In Environmental LawRio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 United Nations ( UN )United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, art. 2, 31 I.L.M. at 854.Duncan French ( 2000 ) . Developing States and International Environmental Law: The Importance of Differentiated Responsibilities.International & A ; Comparative Law Quarterly,49, pp 35-60 doi:10.1017/S0020589300063958International Environmental Agreements: Politicss, Law and Economics, Springer Netherlands, Vol ume 2, Number 2 / June, 2002, pg. 151-170 www.springerlink.comP. Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law: Models, Standards and Implementation, 1st edn. ( Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996 ) at 217.KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The Difference Between Morals and Ethics - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1535 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Philosophy Essay Type Compare and contrast essay Did you like this example? The difference between moral and ethics can seem somewhat arbitrary to many yet, in fact, there exists a delicate difference between these two respective ideas (Kayne, 2015). In this essay, the writer will attempt to present the difference between moral and ethics and evaluate the following ethical perspectivesutilitarianism, Rawlss justice and fairness theory and communitarianismas it is applied to business. Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent. When considering the difference between ethics and morals in terms of business, it may be helpful to con sider a businessman. Though ethics demand that making profit by engaging in certain legal business operation such as selling fast food is perfectly legal, a businessmanà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s personal and moral code is likely to find selling sugary drinks to unsuspecting children a crime. On the other hand, a scrupulous food manufacturer might disregard the social cost of his actions and continue to sell unhealthy food to young students with the sole purpose of making profit which is legal in the eyes of the law so long as he knows the loopholes in the legal system. Ethics can be universal and objective in nature whereas morality is personal and subjective (Wikipedia, 2015). Utilitarianism suggests that our ethical choices, just like any other types of decisions that we make should be based on the corresponding consequences and in doing so the proponents attempt to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarian also consider both short-and long-term consequences when making ethical decisions. Utilitarian believe that when making a choice they have to follow a certain process. Firstly, they have to identify all the possible courses of action. For instance, if a food manufacturer is considering to selling a certain food item, he should not only think about the profit but also estimate the direct as well as indirect costs and benefits of his product. Secondly, he should select the alternatives that produce the greatest amount of good based on the cost benefit ratio generated in selling that product. In short, utility or the usefulness should outweigh the negatives. According to the proponents of utilitarianism, namely, Jeremy Bentham and Jean Stuart Mill, this is an ethical system which is best suited for public policy decisions that can provide a rational basis for making political, administrative and judicial choices (Wikipedia, 2015). However, utilitarianism might find its usefulness in an open market environment as well if the govern ment can make a specified legislation that can benefit all. A good example for this is the monopoly of the Sinopec, the oil giant of the Chinese government. Chinese government keeps a tight grip on this company so that it can keep the oil price under control which guarantees a reasonable cost of living for the poor masses. Despite its popularity and usefulness, utilitarianism can fall short due to the deficiencies starting with dilemmas in defining à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“the greatest goodà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . When a person or a group of people make decisions according to utilitarian principle, they might overlook the long-term risks in favor of immediate rewards. In the case of market monopoly by certain state owned companies, there is always a possibility that a company can destroy fair trade and market competitiveness. Ironically, one of the greatest strengths of utilitarian theory is its concern for collective human welfare, but like a double edged sword, this also serves as one of its gr eatest weaknesses. Immanuel Kant argues in his categorical imperatives that moral duties should be obeyed without exception (Rohlf, 2014). This means individuals should do what is morally right no matter what the consequences are. In addition, Kantian system of reasoning often focuses on the belief that there are universal principles that should be followed in every situation, however in reality, ethical dilemmas often require us to make choices between competing obligations where we are forced to determine our priorities. Utilitarian and Kantian ethical systems fall short in their entirety by failing to recognize the greatest good for greatest number of people and the impracticality of the universal principle in diverse societies. In order to solve these weaknesses, John Rawls, a Harvard philosopher, came up with his idea that what is just for one should be just for all (Wikipedia, 2015); therefore, each individual has an equal right to the same basic liberties that are compa tible with similar liberties for all. He is not merely looking for the greatest goods for the greatest number but try to answer the past injustices through the use of concrete programs such as affirmative action in the United States. He also believes that the greatest benefits should go to the least advantaged members of the society. For him, justice primarily means fairness and principles of equality and liberty should protect the rights of all individuals. These liberties include peopleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right to vote, freedom of speech and thought, freedom to own personal property, and freedom from arbitrary arrest. Rawlss believe that there are inequalities in the society; however, his focus is to improve the welfare of the least advantaged member of the society. In his concept of veil of ignorance he recognizes democracies such as Great Britain, U.S and Canada as countries which can apply this theory more effectively. Rawlss suggest people should adopt a hypothetical veil o f ignorance which is a moral guideline in order to ensure the best outcomes even in the worst of circumstances. For Rawls, distributing resources and benefits is a way to protect common good and he believes it to be fair; however, he does not suggest that the society should disregard individual rights. If a person is talented, skilled and fortunate, they are free to follow their goals without any hindrance; however, his or her fruits of labor must shower on the less fortunate neighbors of his. This belief of Rawlss can certainly influence the society to be motivated in a positive manner, and his theory would have acted as a moral compass in making legislative decisions in certain countries, if not for the abstractedness of his theory. The lack of Rawlss concrete examples and the impossibility of applying his theory due to the fact that his theory only offer broad guidelines and define principles of justice only allowed criticisms from advocates of liberty and equality. As m uch as Rawlsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s justice and fairness tries to make a society a place where fairness is paramount, communitarians believe that the connection between individuals and community as a collection of interactions in a given place where people share a common interest (Wikipedia, 2015) also believe that a persons individuality is a product of community relationships rather than a product derived only from personal traits. This may mean that an ethical society is a product of community relationships. What is interesting is that all these systems focus on improving social welfare and the happiness level of the individuals of the societies they envisage; however, the way they propose to achieve the desired outcomes create ideological clashes. When it comes to business, these three systems can act in different ways to improve the social systems in different ways. In a market oriented system such as New Zealand Rawlss justice and fairness can work rather effectively whereas ut ilitarian principle can work miracles in a planned economy where the government makes majority of decisions on behalf of the people. Communitarianism on the other hand can thrive in a socialistic system where economy can be highly centralized and peoples rights can be given utmost priority. It is indeed hard to find a system that operates on these principles completely; however, there are certain countries such as Cuba and Nepal which are characterized by communitarian ideas. In conclusion, the three ethical perspectives namely, utilitarianism, Rawlss justice and fairness and communitarianism, can be applied to businesses in given societies and organizations. However, when applying these principles, the organizations and individuals should bear in mind the practicality of these principles in concrete situations. References [1] https://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm Kayne, R, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The Differerence between Ethics and Mor alsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , Conjecture Corporation (2015), Niki Foster (ed.). Retrieved from https://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics Ethics. (2015, March 23). InWikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:31, March 25, 2015, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics] [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Utilitarianism. (2015, March 24). InWikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:37, March 25, 2015, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilitarianismoldid=653288173] [4] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ Rohlf, Michael, Immanuel Kant, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from [https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/kant/] [5 ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice A Theory of Justice. (2015, March 25). InWikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:39, March 25 , 2015, fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Theory_of_Justiceoldid=653435943 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism Communitarianism. (2015, March 23). InWikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:46, March 25, 2015, fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communitarianismoldid=653093014 Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Difference Between Morals and Ethics" essay for you Create order