A Satisfactory Alternative To Utilitarianism Proposals Philosophy Essay

A Satisfactory Alternative To Utilitarianism Proposals Philosophy Essay A Theory of Justice by John Rawls presents a vastly more viable, workable, systematic, and satisfactory alternative to Utilitarianism proposals as a moral theory. While Utilitarianism attempts to spread benefits and burdens across society with the goal of maximizing utility, A Theory of Justice establishes the two first principles which ensure that each member of society first have access to basic liberties and secondly allows for social and economic inequalities to exist provided society is structured so as to benefit those who are the least well off. Additionally, Rawls Original Position and veil of ignorance ensures that individuals will not set up society so as to give themselves a greater advantage, but rather will have an incentive to set up scheme of justice which treats all members of society fairly as they do not have the information through wich they could, with any degree of certainty, stack the deck in their favor. In contrast with utilitarianism Rawls assumes that justic e not utility is the overriding factor in creation of a good society. Additionally, Rawls principles are ones that free and rational persons would accept under the original position with a veil of ignorance limiting individuals from creating an unfair advantage from the outset. Social contract theory is superior to utilitarianism precisely because it affords each person equal rights to the most extensive basic liberty in alignment with others in society whereas utility as an aim boasts no such ability. FIRST PRINCIPLES The difference principle is the idea that actions taken in society should improve the expectations of the least advantaged members of society. However it shapes this in the lens of mutual advantage, or as I like to think of it, a tide raises all boats. Ultimately both persons are better off. Rawls states that Inequality in expectation is permissible only if lowering it would make the working class even more worse off. With this in play, Greater expectations allowed to entrepreneurs encourages them to do things which raise the long term prospects of laboring class. The difference principle in effect takes a small aspect of utility and applies it, in a different way to the least well off. DISTINCTION BETWEEN PERSONS Perhaps Rawls greatest critique of Utilitarianism is in regards to the distinction of persons. Utilitarianism can only claim to protect individual rights in so much as the single paramount aim of utility achieves this through maximizes utility. As will be notes later, utility is a horrible tool for achieving this aim. A Theory of Justice  is Rawlss creation with the goal to create a philosophy of justice that provides more satisfaction in the quest for a system which aptly preserves justice and individual liberties. His first two principles achieve this and are as follows: The first is that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. The second is that Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that: a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of  fair equality of opportunity From this ordering, equal liberty is first and foremost secured, folled by a more satisfactory social safety net that allows for economic advantage of some over others in so long as it benefits the least well off. Transitioning from this basis which respects the distinction of persons, Rawls begins his attacks on Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism in a misled effort, takes the logic that a single individual would rationally make to maximize the benefits and minimize burdens, and tries to apply them to society as a whole. You cannot apply the cost and benefit logic made by one person to the collective of persons society wide. Rawls contends that this lends itself to situations where there is neglect for the separateness of persons in favor adding up the total happiness and is prone to the violation of basic rights and liberties, which in his view are paramount. While it is perfectly logical for an individual to strive for maximum happiness for themselves, utilitarian theory is flawed in its attempts to apply these concepts to society as a whole. Social contract theory, in a vastly better way provides protection for individuals. Rawls uses examples such as Slavery and Suppression of free speech to show how, conceivably, the suppression of ones rights could be allowed under utilitarianism. For example, suppose a society was built of a strong majority of people, whos entire income was based upon the silence or labor of another class. Were this class of people to be given freedom of speech or rights to vote or freedom from forces labor, the entire society would collapse, resulting in a near complete depletion of utility for the whole. Under the principles of utilitarianism this liberation should not happen. In the quest to maximize   utility for all citizens other members of society must necessarily be denied any meaningful right or liberties to prop up the whole. Rawls sets up what he calls the the impartial  spectator to illustrate this. This individual feels the wants and needs of all in society. From this all knowing snap shot, this person determines the best way to maximize utility overall.  In doing this, the spectator may give certain groups higher priority over others due to the constraints of maximizing utility.  Thus Rawls argues that potentially very little care will go toward the individual whose rights and freedoms could conceivably be neglected because  they make up a minority or insignificant factor in the overarching goal to maximize societies utility. From here, he states that Utilitarianism does not  take seriously the distinction between persons..  Rawls asserts that his theory is an improvement from this since a theory of justice takes all person into account. The utilitarian response to this is of course that it is precisely by the focus upon achieving utility and would thereby argue that utility is best achieved when individual rights are protected. However, in contrast with Rawls second principle, the utilitarian idea does not particularly care what the spread of utility is across people. It may well be that utility is best served when all members of society are provided equal rights, but Rawls point is that there are compelling examples of where this could be completely untrue(e.g. Slavery). EQUILIBRIUM The concept of equilibrium also very important in Rawls overall theory and the sustenance of the original position. If a departure from this situation sets in motion tendencies which restore it, the equilibrium is stable. What he means by this is since the agreement is freely struck between individuals and it provides the best situation for all parties involved within this system, there is a built in check on any activity threatening the system. Since the system maximizes individual interests, provided they are consistent with the rights and freedom of others, the majority of individuals will be benefiting from the system and will work to maintain it. In a way this is reminiscent of utilitarianism. While utility is not being directly calculated, by everyone playing by the rules, it is of maximum benefit to all involved. Essentially, his failsafe measure to preserve the Original Position is everyones desire to maximize his or her own utility. Responsibility Another appeal for the theory of justice is its upholding of personal responsibility and that dynamic between society and individuals. While under his first principles, society is charged with ensuring liberties the flip side to this is that with this as a starting point, each individual is responsible for his or her life plan and choices as well as the consequences that emanate from them. A default on life plans, does not bring about legitimate grounds for compensation by society. Conversely, if a member succeeds well beyond those around them, this merit based achievement and wealth/happiness disparity is allowable, provided it benefit the least well off in society. In society owes the individual only to uphold the first principles, from there, unlike utilitarianism there is a sort of empowerment of the individual. VEIL Rawls states that for this system to work, all citizens must see themselves as   being behind a veil of ignorance.  Ã‚  By this he means that all deciding parties   in establishing the guidelines of justice (all citizens) must see themselves as   equal to everyone paying no mind to there economic situation or anything else   that they could keep in mind to negotiate a better situation to those qualities.  For example, someone who will become wealthy would not be made aware of this due to the veil, and therefore would not attempt to set up the tax code so as to benefit him over others. The individual has an incentive to do this as he or she may end up with the bad end of the deal when all the cards are laid on the table. This sets up a vastly more fair system than utilitarianism can provide. With utilitarianism, a majority could very easily take a look at the way this will play out, and shift them to be in their favor, and this would be allowed should it maximize the total utility. Another weak area for utilitarianism is in regards to what Rawls asserts in his statement that even where laws and institutions are unjust, it is often better that they should be consistently applied. In this way those subject tot them at least know what is demanded and they can try to protect themselves accordingly. Expectations are critical. It is important that even if the law is unjust, that it is consistent and clear. The situation that arises out of an unjust and inconsistent law, is that you have a populace unable to shield themselves or judge what their behavior should be to avoid punishment. Utilitarianism, by its very nature offers no such similar consistency since its goal is not justice, but rather utility. It is possible that randomly, one act or another could be made illegal or taxed with the known result that it will increase utility. Of course the counter claim to this is that maximizing utility leads to justice, but again there are countless examples where this would be untrue. I find in solidarity with Rawls in that justice is better served in the contractarian system over the utilitarian system. If the utilitarian system aims to simply have the most happiness spread to the most people possible, where is the justice for those who fall between the cracks of this system and are sacrificed as a necessary evil to the happiness of the many? Additionally, the idea that one injustice will compensate for the other, which on the surface, seems to be what utilitarianism promotes I find no basis in human reasoning. Under the veil of ignorance this would never be allowed. His concept of democratic equality is an alternative to utilitarianism which is vastly more appealing. He goes on to claim that the reason for the predominance of utilitarianism is due to the vast amount of well refined and impressive writings on the subject. He notes that the great writers for this system were social theorists and economists first and foremost and secondly worked to hash out theories in their writings with which to support and fine turn their beliefs. Throughout the 19th and 20th century there was near monopoly of thought from the major philosophical theorist in support of utilitarianism. I tend to agree with Rawls in his assertion that these theories received a very secluded amount of scrutiny toward Utilitarianisms weak points. While the positives of the system were well distributed and known, the skeptical voices were given a less widespread audience. I also agree with Rawls in his belief that their must be an alternative option available to people and that pointing out the flaws of utilitarians isnt enough. A choice must be given and is given in A Theory of Justice.. It is never enough to simply sit back and point the finger in a critique. Rather, an alternative must and is provided by Rawls. Rawls also defeats utilitarianism in the battle for a balance between liberty and equality. Under his first principles, liberty is adequately served in that he understands that there will always arises a disparity of wealth within society, but then with his second principle he establishes a check upon the trampling of the lowest in society. In Rawls view, this is fair due to the veil and essential aspect is the securing of basic liberties for all as in his first principle. In contrast however, when utility becomes the be all end all to be achieved in a society, you end up in a system that will result in the complete disregard for individual differences and desires. CONCLUSION Despite the huge differences between utilitarianism and the social contract system which Rawls supports, both theories have the same aims. Both attempt to put its actors onto an even playing field, but go about different ways in trying to achieve this. It seems clear that A Theory of Justice gives us a vastly more satisfactory alternative to Utilitarianism. A Theory of Justice establishes the two first principles which provide for basic liberties and secondly allows for individual success in society and inequalities to exist provided the and increase in inequality would benefit those who are the least well off. The veil of ignorance also lays out an incentive for fairness. In essence, Rawls appears to have better grasp upon the basic motivation and nature of human beings. He shows this in his emphasis on individual differences within society and his acceptance of the values of justice, not utility as the measure of a good society.

Basseri of Iran: Past and Present Essay

Basseri of Iran: Past and Present Jonathan Hixon ANT101 Instructor Brown-Warren February 24, 2013 When the Achamenian emperors of ancient Persia built their capital at Persepolis, in a valley of the Zagros, they did so with strategy in mind. Persepolis was placed in a common â€Å"bottleneck† in the annual migration routes of several tribes from the warm coastal plains to the cool summer pastures in the north. Twice a year, several whole confederations of tribes had to pass by Persepolis with all of their wealth in sheep, goats, and horses, and he who ruled Persepolis ruled what then was Persia. One of the tribes that still use this route today is the Basseri of Iran. (Coon, 1962) The Basseri of Iran was a nomadic pastoralist society from the beginning of their existence. The Basseri are located in southwest Iran and were housed in tents. Each tent housed a nuclear family and many tents made up a camp for the Basseri. An independent household occupied every tent in a camp. The tents were arranged in groups of smaller groups that usually would put all of their flocks of animals into one unit that was taken care of by one shepherd. A shepherd was usually a younger boy or girl from different tents that took care of the smaller camp’s flocks. Some families would hire a shepherd from other tents if they did not have the means to provide a qualified shepherd of their own. Nomadic pastoralists had no permanent settlements; instead, complete households shift location with the herd. House structures were highly moveable, such as a tent or yurt, a portable, felt-covered, wood lattice-framed dwelling structure used in the steppes of Central Asia among Kazakh and Kirghiz pastoralists. Pastoralists moved for a number of reasons other than following water and forage for their herds. Herders also moved to avoid neighboring peoples and government control, thus reducing disease, insects, and competition for resources, while abstaining from taxation and circumscription into military service. (Nowak & Laird, 2010) In the past, the Basseri of Iran were nomadic pastoralists, but the Basseri have started to come into a culture of a more advanced technological culture in today’s time. The Basseri have now become more dvanced in their culture with the world we all live in today while respecting the culture they came from in decades past. The social organization of the Basseri is clearly simple, but effective as a organized system of leadership. The Basseri chief is the head of a very strongly centralized political system and has immense authority over all the members of the Basseri tribe. The chief, in his dealing with the headmen, draws on their power and influenc e but does not delegate any of his own power back to them. Some material goods – mostly gifts of some economic and prestige value, such as riding horses and weapons – flow from the chief to the headmen. A headman is in a politically convenient position: he can communicate much more freely with the chief than can ordinary tribesmen, and thus can bring up cases that are to his own advantage and, to some extent, block or delay the discussion of matters detrimental to his own interests. Nonetheless, the political power that a headman derives from the chief is very limited. Johnson, 1996) The Basseri as noted are divided into camps of tents, which may or may not have a headman present in a particular camp. If a camp does not have a headman present, then that camp will usually have an informal leader who were recognized by the other headmen, but had no formal recognition by the Basseri chief. For this reason (not being formally recognized by the Basseri chief) the informal leaders still usually answered to an â€Å"official† h eadman in another camp which could bring things up before the chief if something needed to be addressed. The head of the household (or tent) would be the person responsible for bringing things up to an informal leader or a headman for discussion with the chief when things needed to be brought to the attention of the chief for social or political discussion. This political organization is not so hard to grasp as one of a huge population like we see in the United States. In summary, one could see that there are tents that housed families, a head of household for that tent, an informal leader or headman and finally the chief (who would be over many different camps and tents within those camps). This political organization would be closely compared to, for instance, a police department chain of command in where you have the chief, then the captains (compared to the headmen), then sergeants (informal leaders), corporals (heads of households), and finally the troops (members of the individual households). This was a way I could compare and understand the political organization of the Basseri people easily. The economic function of the Basseri was that of true importance to the tents/households ability to sustain themselves. The economic function of the Basseri lies in the occupancy of pastures throughout the migratory fashion of the Basseri. Tents are the basic element of the economic unit in the Basseri community. As much as they are social units, tents are also the basic units of production and consumption. In the summer, there might have been as many as thirty or forty tents that made up a camp; however in the winter months, camps were reduced down to approximately two to five tents and were separated from other camps by three or four kilometers. The Basseri keep a variety of domesticated animals, but sheep and goats have the greatest economic importance. Other domesticated animals include donkeys for transport and riding (mainly by women and children), horses for riding only (predominately by men), camels for heavy transport and wool, and dogs for keeping watch in camp. (Johnson, 1996) Their products obtained from their flocks sustain the Basseri community. The Basseris’ most important products for trade included milk, lambskins, and wool, in that order. The Basseri spins, weave wool and goat-hair, and make their own tent poles, pack-saddles, and cordage. The rest of their equipment is bought from townsmen and gypsies, their vegetable food from villagers. Some of the Basseri own village lands from which they receive shares of the crops. (Coon, 1962) Community members trade in their milk, hides and other animal products at bazaars in surrounding towns and use this money to purchase other types of food such as vegetables, clothing and other necessities. As John Dowling argues, it is informative to contrast the Basseri with another pastoral people, the Turkana of Tanganyika. Both the Basseri and the Turkana are nomadic, both have productive organizations that are family based, both pasture their animals on tribally owned lands to which all individuals have usufruct rights, and in both societies animals are culturally ascribed to individuals property. But the orientation of the Turkana pastoralist is vastly different than that of the Basseri. The Turkana pastoralist produces primarily for consumption, the Basseri for sale. (Dowling, 1975) Dowling goes on to say that the Basseri go frequently to the market, buying material for women’s clothing, men’s ready made clothing, goods of tanned leather (shoes, saddles, etc. ), wheat flour (a staple), sugar, tea, dates, fruits, vegetables, glass ware, china, metal articles (cooking utensils, etc. ), narcotics, luxury goods such as women’s jewelry and carpets, and, for those who are able, land. The Turkana could live without external trade; they are self-sufficient subsistence producers. The Basseri are market dependent. (Dowling, 1975) Gender roles of the Basseri were clearly defined and adhered to by the members of the Basseri camps and tents. The gender roles of the Basseri are clearly defined by the community. When it comes to the tent, all authority lies with the husband (head of household). The husband was the decision-making person in the household and all were expected to adhere to the decisions made by the husband. Women had less significant power and were generally their roles were to take care of the day-to-day domestic operations of the tent or household. Women were also considered part of a man’s wealth and it was quite common for a wealthy man to marry more than one wife. Daughters had no rights in choosing a marriage partner as this decision was solely made by the husband/father and the father of the boy the daughter was to marry. Most families viewed the girl children as a means of gaining wealth since they understood that the girl would attract a certain amount of bride wealth into the family. The boy child was of more use to the community as a whole. The boys could look after the herds (even though there were cases that I read where girls were allowed to do shepherding duties as well) and protect and help the communities in the struggle between other communities. Marriage among the Basseri was arranged and it was not possible for a girl of the tent to have much of a say in who she would marry. As stated before, the Basseri of Iran have households that are referred to as tents; within a tent, there were nuclear families that had members of households headed by the husband who was considered head of his tent or household. The husband or head of the tent was the one who made all arrangements for marriages of his sons and daughters under their tents. The husbands would discuss with members of other tents who show interests in his sons or daughters and together, they would arrange marriages between the sons and daughters of other tents or households. The parties that were to get married usually had very little options but to accept what had been decided for them and accepted the marriage. The father of the bride would have to pay the bride price in the form of livestock and would also be expected to give a share of his animals to the new couple as a form of inheritance. This inheritance ould form the means of subsistence for the newly married couple/family. A married man may arrange subsequent marriages for himself, whereas all women and unmarried boys are subject to the authority of a marriage guardian, who is the head of their household. The marriage contract is often drawn up and written by a nontribal ritual specialist, or holy man. It stipulates certain bride-payments for the girl and the domestic equipment she is expected to bring, and the divorce or widow’s insurance, which is a prearranged share of the husband’s estate, payable upon divorce or in the event of his death. Johnson, 1996) Basseri are slowly becoming more and more settled in todays society and some are moving away from the traditional nomadic pastoralist ways of culture and moving towards a more modern approach to life. While there are still nomadic pastoralists today among the Basseri, many of the Basseri have begun to settle down and become a more settled culture. Poverty and debt lead a household to consume their capital in livestock; this makes them poorer, which makes it harder to make ends meet. More capital is consumed, and with no alternative sources of wealth available, settlement is inevitable. (Bradburd, 1989) Successful Basseri build up their herds, accumulating hundreds or thousands of animals. Fearful of losing their wealth to disease and the vulnerabilities of nature, herders convert this capital into an alternative form of wealth, such as land in local villages. The land is cultivated by villagers as tenant farmers, including unsuccessful Basseri who lost their herds and ended up as agricultural laborers. Nowak & Laird, 2010) Bradburd argues that not only poor Basseri settled; wealthy Basseri were driven to settle both by the risks of pastoralism, which threatened them with a return to poverty, and by the fact that the economic realities of their situation did not provide a return commensurate with their risk. (Bradburd, 1989) With increased modernization, many of the Basseri have learned of other subsistence means that are more profitable and have shifted away from the traditional Basseri culture or pastoralists. Traditionally, the Basseri of south western Iran are nomadic pastoralists and they continue to be that way in today’s time, but the number of traditional nomadic pastoralists among the Basseri people a very few. Most Basseri have begun to move towards a more modern approach in living and have settled down in villages or even more urban areas to obtain jobs that sustain life easier than their ancestors had in previous years. In the past, the Basseri of Iran were nomadic pastoralists, but the Basseri have started to come into a culture of a more advanced technological culture in today’s time. The Basseri have now become more advanced in their culture with the world we all live in today while respecting the culture they came from in decades past. Most texts agree that many of the settled people in the southwestern area of Iran either were Basseri or are descendants of Basseri. Even though there are still traditional nomadic pastoralist Basseri in the region, they have become small in number; but the one’s that exist today, value their lifestyle and don’t want to change the way they have been living for many years.

The End of Why University of Michigan Essay Samples

The End of Why University of Michigan Essay Samples The Hidden Treasure of Why University of Michigan Essay Samples Whichever passion you select, generate a fast bullet-point list of the points you wish to make about it before you begin writing. With your essays, you own an opportunity to demonstrate you know why you picked this precise university, that you're a fantastic fit for this specific program and they can be sure you're a very good fit to this university. An ideal Why essay will demonstrate your expertise and interest of the school goes far past the surface. What's a college admission essay. When you begin to compose this essay, you first need to develop why you prefer to study that which you have indicated on your application. Even in the event the paper itself isn't big you still may require a specialist essay writer that will help you. Additional journal submissions demanded they analyze the cells. At our essay assistance, essays are always delivered in a brief moment. By way of example, a why us essay might chat about how very interesting XYZ interdisciplinary project is and the way it fits nicely with your senior project. The essay isn't read separately but considering all the information which you provide in your application. How can you compose a fantastic argumentative essay. When you are finished writing, have a look at your two responses and see whether they are complementary of one another. Australian essay writing service you may rely on. Today you will start the practice of producing your writing. Fortunately, in the procedure for articulating these answers, you will also gain in a number of ways. But don't compose this if you don't signify it! Stating your goals in a vacuum, with no connection to where you're, can be a small bit confusing for the reader, especially if you're a career changer. Make important and intriguing connections. Where to Find Why University of Michigan Essay Samples Colleges care about the quantities of acceptances deeply, so it could help to understand you're a sure thing. They publish lots and lots of different kinds of things, any of which is useful for research. Read on to learn more about how to do a good job demonstrating what they really want to know. After that, think about what they might want to know about their prospective students. Basically, schools are searching for students who will take advantage of all of the special opportunities they offer so they possess the biggest impact at the school and if they're alumni. Make certain to do a little bit of research so that you can provide more than generic examples like I wish to visit a huge school or I like sports that could apply to many different schools. To be able to prove you and the college are destined for one another, you are going to want to write about connections between the both of you. Colleges wish to know you're an excellent fit for their school and have a true comprehension of it. As an example, say you really need the opportunity to learn from the world-famous Professor X. And after three decades of toil, it turned into a fine idea in practice. Michigan's definitely famous for its school spirit and sports. The banner price is paid only once and you may use the very same banner next year or at a different venue. The usage of NFL jerseys is extremely common. Most of the folks, who think aerial advertising is a costly option, are astonished to understand how cheap it really is.

The Fall Of The Roman Empire - 921 Words

In history it is repeatedly shown that a rebellion on society can change a country. At the beginning of the Roman Empire there were two political classes, the Plebeians and Patricians. The Patricians were the aristocracy in society and put all the hard labor on the Plebeians, who were servants to the Patricians. The balances of power in Roman society changed quickly when the plebeians chose to rise up and rebel against the Roman rule. The rebellion the Plebeians had against the Patricians caused a drastic change in the Roman Empire. At the beginning of the Roman Empire the aristocrats or Patrician party administrated the Roman Government. â€Å"The Government of the republic had three major parts: magistrates, who were elected each year to lead the army and run the government; the Senate, made up of wealthy aristocrats, the heads of noble families, and hereditary priests, who advised the magistrates; and the popular assemblies.† (Ward) The Patricians had the role of electing the magistrates in the Roman government and originally made up most of the army so therefore in return their votes counted more than the Plebeians in the main popular assemblies and the Senate. The Patricians leaving the Plebeians on the outside of the Government were utilizing the power in Rome. â€Å"The chief magistrates came to be called consuls. There were two elected each year.†(Ward) The role of being consul included controlling the Roman army and secondly, making governmental decisions. The Patricians hadShow MoreRelate dFall of the Roman Empire1288 Words   |  6 PagesThe Pax Romana was a two hundred year time period where the Romans had peace and prosperity under Augustus. The Roman empire started to decline at the end of the prevail of the last five emperors, Marcus Aurelius in 161-180 A.D. The rulers in the next century had no idea how to deal with the problems the empire was having. There was many reasons to the fall of the Roman Empire but three stood out the most. The preliminary reason was the economy begins to decline. The alternative reasoning was RomeRead MoreThe Fall Of The Roman Empire1537 Words   |  7 PagesAncient Rome was an empire so dominant, wealthy and economically- stable which came to a dramatic fall in the period of 250AD- 500AD. Ancient Rome faced unexplained unfortunate events which crumbled the Great Empire from the affluent empire to a impoverished society. For centuries historians have timelessly theorised and analysed many debates and research in relation to the Fa ll of the Roman Empire. What really caused the predominate Roman Empire to fall? Did Rome fall naturally? Was disease, suchRead MoreFall of the Roman Empire758 Words   |  4 PagesTaylor Davino Professor Horsley HIS 126 3 March 2010 The fall of the Roman Empire Political, economic and social aspects were all involved in the fall of the Roman Empire. In 395 A.D., Rome was divided into two empires, with one capital in Rome and the other in Constantinople. During that time, the western Roman Empire was being invaded by barbarian tribes from the North. In 410, the Visigoth tribe succeeded in conquering the western capital in Rome. In 476, the western EmperorRead MoreThe Fall Of The Roman Empire1419 Words   |  6 PagesThe Roman Empire was a powerful governing body of extensive political and social structures throughout western civilization. How did this empire fall and were internal factories responsible? Slow occurrences in succession to one another led to the fall of the empire rather than one single event. The fall of the Roman Empire was a combination of both internal and external pressures, not just one, leading up to the complete decay of the cities—Rome and Constantinople. However, one could argue how oneRead MoreThe Fall Of Ro man Empire1185 Words   |  5 PagesThe Fall of Roman Empire Roman Empire was considered as one of the most influential and dominant Empire in the history that has ever existed. â€Å"The Roman Empire at its zenith in the period of the Principate (roughly, 27 BC to AD 235) covered vast tracts of three continents, Europe, Africa, and Asia† (Garnsey). It was an ancient, modern Empire, and it supported anyone who made discoveries and technological improvements. The Empire was the strongest governing body in the Mediterranean. If the RomanRead MoreThe Fall Of The Roman Empire1440 Words   |  6 PagesSophie Loren Plays a Leading Role in the Fall of the Roman Empire? The reason for the fall of the Roman Empire is a controversial topic under much historical debate. How did such a great empire, known for being one of the largest that lasted over a millennium, fall? The Roman Empire transitioned from a republic to an empire in 31 BCE. Augustus Caesar was the first emperor. He created harmony in Rome, but not in calendars as he added August as the eighth month to follow July, which was named afterRead MoreFall of Roman Empire1175 Words   |  5 PagesThe Fall of the Roman Empire The Ancient Roman empire was one of the most prominent and successful societies of its time period. By the end of their reign, the Romans had conquered almost all of the Mediterranean including parts of present day Europe, Asia, and Africa. Rome was at its strongest during the rule of Augustus Caesar, this time was known as the â€Å"Pax Romana† or Roman peace. It wasn’t until later, when Emperor Trajan took over in about 98 C.E. that the Empire reached its peak. AfterRead MoreThe Fall of the Roman Empire609 Words   |  3 PagesThe Fall of the Roman Empire There are adherents to single factors, but more people think Rome fell because of a combination of such factors as Christianity, and economy, and military problems. Even the rise of Islam is proposed as the reason for Romes fall, by some who think the Fall of Rome happened at Constantinople in the 15th Century. Most people think it occurred during the fifth century, after the western division of the empire. There were several reasons for the fall of the Roman EmpireRead MoreThe Fall Of The Roman Empire1438 Words   |  6 PagesThe Roman Empire was one of the most powerful empires in the history of mankind. In 476 CE Odoacer defeated Romulus Augustus to capture Rome; most historians agree that this was the official end of the Western Roman Empire. There is much debate on how exactly Rome declined and eventually fell. The fall of Rome was a long process that took place over many centuries. There are five main schools of thought on why Rome fell. First, Christianity, offered by Edward Gibbons; He suggests that ChristianityRead MoreThe Fall Of The Roman Empire1495 Words   |  6 PagesFor a long period of time, the debate about the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire has been a popular topic amongst historians. Most of these historians look at the issue from a standpoint that accepts that there were most likely several causes. The main root of the issue is whether or not these causes were internal or external. Some historians even go more in depth and try to hypothesize what the internal or external causes were. In fact, Adrian Goldsworthy and Peter Heather do just this when