Categories
Philosophy

Evaluate the criteria that Kant sets out for a republican government in Toward P

Evaluate the criteria that Kant sets out for a republican government in Toward Perpetual Peace, and the role that this form of government plays in his overall theory of how war might be avoided.
Please use only the attached files as sources. use of in text citation is necessary as well. Please do not over quote sources.

Categories
Philosophy

Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations (1776), provided the philosophical justificatio

Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations (1776), provided the philosophical justification for liberalism, which we use more or less interchangeably with capitalism.
Marx, almost a century later, analyzed capitalism in a starkly different manner. What did Marx, the theorist, believe to be wrong with how liberal thought portrayed labor?
Please use only the attached files as sources. use of in text citation is necessary as well. Please do not over quote sources.

Categories
Philosophy

The paper is simply the writers personal response and statement to the speech be

The paper is simply the writers personal response and statement to the speech below:
Although Hume is a major figure in the philosophical subfields of epistemology and ethics, hardly anyone other than Hume scholars treats Hume’s political theory as influential within American politics (some Hume scholars believe that James Madison was strongly influenced by Hume, but this is debatable). We can certainly see a connection between some of the things that Hume ([1777] 1987) talks about and contemporary American politics – e.g. a representative government and the separation of powers. However, Hume’s essay from this week’s readings was a brief commentary on other people’s ideas, and Hume was not a very original or influential political thinker. As such, my reply is going to focus on Locke and Rousseau.
Locke (1689) is a major figure within the political philosophy of liberalism, and Rousseau (1761) is a major figure within the political philosophies of socialism and fascism. While not entirely accurate, it may be beneficial to conceptualize this as Locke influencing the contemporary center-left and center-right, and Rousseau influencing the contemporary far-left and far-right. The reason that Locke and Rousseau influence different political groups is because of their fundamental disagreement about the idea of a collective will. Basically, (classical) liberals tend to be empiricists who look at the fact that people disagree and then construct a political theory that presupposes that people will continue to disagree in the future. On the other hand, socialists and fascists tend to be idealists who look at the fact that people disagree and then construct a political theory which attributes this disagreement to bad people ruining things for good people. For the socialists and fascists, authoritarianism is only bad if it supports the bad people rather than the good people. Liberals tend to accuse socialists/fascists of wanting to become the oppressor rather than wanting to minimize oppression, and socialists/fascists tend to accuse liberals of wanting to maintain immoral aspects of the status quo rather than create a better society. Which side seems reasonable will likely depend on a person’s beliefs about moral universalism and the correct way to deal with disagreement.
We can see Locke’s (1689) acceptance of disagreement in nearly every aspect of his political philosophy. Locke advocates for some amount of toleration of differences. Locke argues that humans have an equal value and natural rights, and he thinks that the government must protect the rights of individual citizens. Locke suggests that oppressive impulses should be impeded by creating a limited government that divides power and guarantees property rights. In short, Locke imagines government as a mutually-beneficial social-contract which primarily exists to protect the rights of individuals.
On the other hand, Rousseau (1761) believes that people share some common will, and this suggests that it is possible for a leader to act as a representative for the common will of the people. Rousseau says: “In a perfect act of legislation, the individual or particular will should be at zero; the corporate will belonging to the government should occupy a very subordinate position; and, consequently, the general or sovereign will should always predominate and should be the sole guide of all the rest” (Book 3, Chapter 2). Rousseau then acknowledges that, in reality, the individual will predominates; however, Rousseau believes that giving power to a moral authoritarian leader combines the common will with the individual will. It should be noted that Rousseau believes that different types of governments are suitable for different societies. Rousseau claims that larger and more complex societies must necessarily have less freedom, and he believes that authoritarianism becomes more desirable in larger societies. In short, Rousseau imagines government as an institution that should serve to act on the collective will of the people, and he sees individual wills as needing to be subordinated to the will of the collective.
It is not clear that any of Rousseau’s (1761) ideas are “nowhere in evidence” in contemporary American politics, but some of Rousseau’s ideas are certainly unpopular. One example of an unpopular idea is the aforementioned claim that different forms of government are suitable to different societies. While fascists like Mussolini praised Rousseau for this insight, the typical American would likely disagree with the claim that the desirability of authoritarianism depends on the society. Even among American socialists, there is often the naïve belief that socialism could be implemented in a democracy (which is clearly absurd if you think about it critically for 5 minutes). It would seem that the typical American has been socialized to believe that freedom is good and authoritarianism is bad, and this is likely why Americans would be bothered by the claim that authoritarianism can be desirable in some societies (though many Americans certainly act as if they support authoritarianism).
In sum, Hume’s political philosophy has had little – if any – effect on contemporary American politics. Locke’s political philosophy has had a profound impact on contemporary American politics, and many – if not most – Americans believe in ideas like human rights, tolerance, separation of powers, the right to revolt against a tyrant, etc. Rousseau’s political philosophy has had a minimal/moderate impact on contemporary American politics, mostly via the influence Rousseau had on the development of socialism and fascism. This week’s reading from Rousseau also introduces students to Montesquieu’s ideas which did influence American politics, but I would not credit Rousseau for Montesquieu’s influence.

Categories
Philosophy

What elements of the political philosophies of Locke, Hume, and Rousseau can you

What elements of the political philosophies of Locke, Hume, and Rousseau can you identify in the American political system of today? What elements of Rousseau’s thought are nowhere in evidence, and why is this so?
Please use the source attached and two peer reviewed or scholarly articles. The following links/sources may also be used in place of the two peer reviewed or scholarly articles:
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/hollis-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/cole-the-social-contract-and-discourses#lf0132_head_074

Categories
Philosophy

1. First, note the formal criteria for “just war” given in attached sources. Wha

1. First, note the formal criteria for “just war” given in attached sources. What are the advantages and disadvantages of committing to a set of formal criteria for future decisions concerning the use of force?

2. Second, one consequence of religious influence on ideas concerning warfare is that wars are often viewed as battles between good and evil. How might such a perception affect one side’s adherence to jus in bello rules? Should the relative rightness of one’s cause affect whether the jus in bello rules are followed? (Note: Please be sure to look at the ways that the various writers would answer these questions as well.)
Please use only the attached sources: Select three of the four that best suits and supports the paper and use them as references. Please use in-text citations to show the reader how the sources where used.

Categories
Philosophy

Answers are 200 words long 1) Suppose that someone argues as follows: ‘ profess

Answers are 200 words long
1) Suppose that someone argues as follows: ‘ professor Z recommends an increase in funding for homeless shelters, but she is an elitist who spent her entire life buried in books, so nothing she says should be taken seriously’ what is the problem with this line of argument?
2) consider the following scenario. A team of scientists runs a study, looking for statistically significant correlation between the use of certain drugs by women in the presence of headaches. They find the correlation, but ultimately conclude that it is insignificant suppose that a genuine correlation between the two does exist. What kind of error has the team of scientists meat can you think of a buys that might explain the error?
3) consider the following argument: (1) Paris is the capital of France or the square root of 25 is nine. (2) the square root of 25 is not nine therefore, (3) Paris is the capital of France. On what grounds might we argue that this is a good argument on what grounds might we argue that this is not a good argument?
4) “ either there you are in favour of abolishing borders or you do not value human lives equally” what kind of fallacy is this, explain
5) neutrality is valuable in the context of reporting the news. Explain why. Braces describe a real or imagined scenario in which the aspiration toward neutrality is misunderstood.

Categories
Philosophy

Why do Plato, and philosophers in general, find the concept of a perfect society

Why do Plato, and philosophers in general, find the concept of a perfect society, or utopia, so useful?
why do utopias (both fictional and real-life attempts) often slide into dystopias?
Compare the ideologies with those related to climate change and environmentalists.

Categories
Philosophy

Write a short argumentative essay to respond to this topic below: –Should chil

Write a short argumentative essay to respond to this topic below:
–Should children be given their meals at school, or is it the responsibility of parents to provide them with healthy meals?
Structure:
Presenting an argument requires a good structure. Below is the outline of a standard structure used in philosophy. You are required to follow this structure in your essay, and I recommend that you take a similar approach to any argumentative essays or presentations that you do in the future in school or a professional setting!
Introduction
Introduce your topic in an interesting way and present your thesis in a clear way. In this presentation (and generally in philosophy) your thesis should be stated as: “In this presentation, I will argue that ___.” This makes your thesis explicit and clear to the listeners.
Definitions
Your topic is likely to use certain unique terms. You should define those terms at the beginning of your presentation so that you lock in one specific definition from the start and you clarify the meaning of your terms from the start of your paper. You can present this as: “In this presentation I will be using a few terms, and I will explain what I mean by them here.”
Examples of this are “By implicit bias, I mean bias that is present in individuals but they may be unaware of since they lie in their unconscious, but still influence their ways of thinking.”
Premises
This is the gist of your argument. You should present two or three reasons that flow into one another in order to lead logically and soundly to your conclusion (thesis). In high school, you probably became familiar with this part of your essay by knowing it as the body of your essay.
For example, if you’re arguing that we need schools to address implicit bias for an early age, we may have the two premises that (1) people acquire implicit biases from a young age and (2) children acquire most of their information at school, and schools are integral in shaping the mindsets of their students. These two premises, taken together with additional explanations, details, and evidence, lead to the conclusion that schools should address implicit bias in order to reduce its prevalence.
Rebuttal
The rebuttal section should raise and address the strongest possible counter argument (or two) against your argument.
For example, if we’re following the same argument as mentioned before, one may argue that parents and home life have a more serious influence on implicit bias than schools, so schools should not focus on addressing this serious issue. This is the counterargument. You could then refute the counterargument by explaining that while implicit bias certainly does seep into kids at home, schools still have a responsibility to address this issue so that the kids are not acquiring biases at school and also learn the tools to be critical of it at home and in other areas of their lives.
Conclusion
Conclude your paper by recapping your argument and the rebuttal. You should not just directly restate what you’ve said earlier in the argument; this should be a very clean explanation of your presentation. You should not bring up any new ideas or evidence in conclusion.

Categories
Philosophy

1. define the five elements of a good argument. The Structural Principle The Re

1. define the five elements of a good argument.
The Structural Principle
The Relevance Principle
The Acceptability Principle
The Sufficiency Principle
The Rebuttal Principle
2. What is a normative argument?
3. Explain the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition using an example.

Categories
Philosophy

For the first part [600 words or more], please CHOOSE, ONE of these chapters fro

For the first part [600 words or more], please CHOOSE, ONE of these chapters from the SOCRATES EXPRESS book and offer a discussion about this philosophers, we have not yet studied; choose among these: Thoreau-4, Rousseau-3, Schoppenhauer-5 Simone Weil-7, Gandhi-8, Sei Schonagon-10, Beauvoir-13.
Read the chapter carefully, offer a summary of main ideas and then engage it critically and/or personally. Also relate it to someone we have studied this semester.
In the second part [200 words or more], explain how has this class changed or not changed your view of life? Which philosophy did you find most useful?