American Dream According To Columbus And John Smith Sample Paper

America has been a destination for exploration and colonization, attracting individuals seeking economic, governmental, and religious growth. The idea of the American dream originated from European influences, particularly through the voyages of Italian explorer Christopher Columbus and Englishman John Smith. Their expeditions played a significant role in promoting the concept of the American dream.

Columbus embarked on a westward voyage in search of a passage to the east and unexpectedly arrived in the abundant new world. According to Columbus’ “Letter to Louis De Santayana regarding the first Voyage,” their initial impressions of this new land fulfilled all their desires. “The islands, including this one, possess boundless fertility.” Upon their arrival, they recognized the possibilities that awaited them – collecting and trading various trees, plants, animals, and fruits. “The island is filled with dense pine forests, vast expanses of cultivable land, honey, diverse bird species, and a wide variety of fruits.” These islands were incredibly fertile. They featured numerous harbors, rivers, highlands, mountains, and sierras. Columbus saw the potential for economic profit through the acquisition of spices, gold, and trade for himself and his country. This land promised a better, easier, and more prosperous life, which can be compared to the American dream in a sense.

When news spread about this newly discovered land, many people desired to be a part of it. Since this land had very few inhabitants, it was available for Europeans to settle in. According to Columbus, “And from that point I sent two men inland to learn if there was a king or great cities. They traveled three days’ journey and found an abundance of small hamlets and countless people, but nothing of significance.” This pristine and sparsely populated land was ripe for European exploitation. Columbus was not the only one who praised this new land. According to Smith, it was also highly regarded by entrepreneurs.

His Description of New England is a comprehensive account of the fishing, soils, inhabitants, fauna, flora, and climate of the coastal region stretching from Cape Cod to Penobscot. Smith viewed New England as a promising destination for the transplantation of English life to America. This work serves as an extensive advertisement and prospectus aimed at attracting investors and settlers, with Smith offering his expertise and leadership. He begins by expressing the joy and satisfaction that come from risking one’s life to acquire land. He highlights how it would be effortless to build one’s own house, cultivate one’s own crops, and enjoy God’s blessings without any prejudice.

Smith discusses the advantages of fishing using only a stick and a hook, stating that one can catch high-quality fish. He also proposes that planting crops could result in an annual yield of up to 50 shillings, which could be used for purchasing meat and beer while still becoming wealthy. Smith finds it odd that laborers who sow different crops and pay for an acre of land, along with providing wages and provisions, can still become poor when better or equally good land is available at no cost except for labor. He urges individuals to come to this country and pursue their American dream, which encompasses achieving a better life with prosperity, freedom, and opportunities. Personally, my version of the American dream has always revolved around owning a beautiful white house with a porch, holding a well-paying 9-5 job, having a loving family with two children, and possessing a loyal golden retriever that retrieves the ball faithfully.

Comparison Between Utilitarianism And Idealism

Idealism would be a better theory for a society with highly intellectual people, and that a combination of this theory would be the best way for our society to evolve from the level of the “is” to the level of the “ought” Plat’s way to go from the “is” to the “ought” is Socratic questioning. He says that we should question ourselves on whether the moral views we have are ideal or not. He also says that the way of looking at things we have is wrong because all men are not the same, and so they do not have the same opinion of things.

Part of his theory says that to get to true virtue (ideal moral views) e have to trim down all the false moral views we have and get to the basic, timeless, and unchanging patterns of the Good. With those ideal moral views, we would be able to mirror the Good. Examples of false ideal moral views for Plato are seeking for selfish pleasures such as food, sex, and power. For Utilitarian’s, the way to get from the level of the “is” to the level of the “ought” is to reward or sanction a person for his or her actions.

In Utilitarianism, people should choose actions that are the most “utile” for them but also for society. In other words, they should choose the most pleasant and less painful actions and consequences for the greatest number of people. The degree of utility (degree of pleasure) is determined by what is called “felicity calculus”. This pleasure calculator is composed of different criteria that careerists the pleasure provided by a certain action. They are intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, fecundity, and purity.

These characteristics of pleasure are calculated for one’s self and for the population that his or her action concerns. If an action is said to have a fairly good utility to one but a very big disability to society, it is said to be an immoral action. In that sense selfish pleasures are immoral. In these two theories, the Socratic questioning and the felicity calculus almost play the same role in the way that the result (chosen action) should be the same if one IS calculating the utility or one is referring to Socratic questioning to take a decision.

The Socratic questioning of Idealism brings the person at the door of the right moral views by trimming all the layers of appearances and opinions over a concept. Even if one is not seeking those ideal moral views the felicity calculus should take one to the same ideal moral views if it’s well performed. In that sense, these two theories are the same because they give the same final result. But one of the theories seems harder to realize because everyone has to go through a long process that not every individual wants to perform or is able to perform. This theory is Idealism.

On the other hand, in Utilitarianism a scale can be made out to lead people in the right way (and that scale is in fact present in our society). These theories are different in the sense that Utilitarianism is easier for a society to perform well. To give rewards and punishments, society needs an authority outside the errors who acts; this is why there are governments, theocracies, and social opinions to guide people. Utilitarianism is the most realistic because people do not have to think about what is right or wrong, they only have to follow the guides (rewards/sanctions).

The society we live in is clearly Utilitarian. The many rewards (salary, respect, etc. ) and sanctions (prison, school failure, etc. ) reveal it. Everything works in the function of rewards and sanctions. It implies that we only have to follow the rules given and no sanctions should be given to us. If our society was Idealist, t would imply that we would have to think and do the Socratic questioning at each dilemma we have. This is impossible because not everybody is intelligent enough to do so, and most of the people would not be willing to go through that process.

There is a danger in having a Utilitarianism society. We just have to think of the United-States with the war they made to Iraq. I believe that the population of that country trusted the felicity calculus scale (which was “written” by the government) too much because most of the population (of the LISA, of course… ) believed that war in Iraq was a good thing. In that case, the scale of that population was wrong because it did not care enough about what Rakings really wanted.

If that dilemma had been well calculated, am sure that they would let Rakings rebuild their country all alone and stop occupying the country. An Idealist society would take time and think about that situation. They would have come to the conclusion that this war was not fair and they would have wanted to wait for real proofs of the presence of massive destruction arms before bombarding Iraq. Another problem that Utilitarianism has raised is sexual inequality. I believe that the situation we are in is caused by an error in the scale of the felicity calculus.

The authority in place decided very long ago that women were inferior, and then nobody really thinker about it (or had the courage to change things) until the first feminists’ movements. With an Idealistic society that problem would never have occurred because Idealists always ask themselves if what they do is right. They would have understood long ago that this situation is completely wrong. The best way to go from the level of the “is” to the level of the “ought” in our society would be to combine these two theories.

  • Idealism should be used by a group of intellectuals to create a scale that would be used in felicity calculus.
  • Felicity calculus should be used by the population.

The scale from the felicity calculus should be adjusted as time goes on so that it evolves well with the new technological, economical and historical facts. But this is only a utopian idea because nobody would be able to create and maintain a “fair” felicity calculus scale since nobody can totally get to the basic principles of morality.

The Pros And Cons Of Science Inventions

Science and invention have led us to a more convenient daily life, but are they always good? We should look at both sides of the coin. So am writing to discuss the pros and cons of science and invention. First of all, with science and invention, there will be less work for human to do. Also, it will be more effective in doing some complicated work. This makes humans’ lives more enjoyTABLE. Vacuum cleaner is a good example, it can remove dirt and dust from the floor, and it is very helpful for housewives.

Vacuum cleaners are also important to those who suffer from allergy and asthma, because high- temperature vascular can sterilize bacteria while working. Furthermore, with scientific invention, we can discover new treatments for diagnose problems. For example, for those who suffer from diabetes- a disease which is becoming increasingly common, now have access to very accurate blood glucose monitoring technology.

This means that they can monitor on a daily basis and control their condition much more effectively, sharply reducing the risk of blindness and nerve damage. However, there are, of course, some sedateness along with the development of science and invention. Inventions are not always good. Sometimes, they may make people become lazier and less capTABLE of doing things for themselves. This is because they rely more on machines and products.

Nowadays, many people are addicted to computers and mobile phones. This results in a lack of imagination of kids. Also, they don ‘t know how to solve problem on their own. If they look at the screen for a long time, they will get short-sighted, too. Another important argument is that science invention may be used to create some dangerous paeans and bombs that is harmful to the society. They can kill people and cause environmental destruction.

For example, the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II had caused a great damage to the people and environment there. Taking both the pros and cons into consideration, I think that science and invention are not always good, and we should not rely too heavily on them. But if we make good use of them, they can still help us a lot and create a more convenient life for us.

error: Content is protected !!