Social & Political Philosophy

Social & Political Philosophy

Answer the following question in no more than 2000 to 2500 words, which is roughy an
8 to 10-page paper. Chose your words carefully, and be sure to pay attention to and
follow the paper?s requirements. Use an academic style for your quotations and
citations, and end your paper with a bibliography or works cited list. Although I draw
your attention to specific sections, you may need to draw on the whole of the readings
to give adequate answers. Here is the question for your term paper:! !
Does social or economic inequality undermine individual liberty?! !
To discuss, debate, and answer this question, primarily draw on Robert Nozick and John
Rawls. To explain their answers, review the relevant and fundamental parts of their respective
theories of justice. Additionally, refer to at least two additional philosophers we studied?
Hobbes, Locke, Mill, or Marx and Engels?one for each side of the question to support your
discussion, and to make comparisons and contrasts with Nozick and Rawls. Ground your
arguments on two examples: one should be from the assigned text, and the other should be a
contemporary example that is pertinent to the topic of this paper.! !
Your Goals !
1. Write a concise and detailed introduction paragraph.!
2. Write an argumentative and contrastive thesis.!
3. Devote a specific paragraph to developing your opponent?s view and explaining
reasons why someone might find that view attractive.!
4. Devote the next paragraph to responding to your opponent?s view.! !
To help you think about your paper to help you choose the texts you will use to support your
discussion and arguments, I?ve provided a short review of each of the background texts
assigned to you.! !
Hobbes, in the Leviathan, puts the right to determine property in the hands of the
sovereign. He argues that property is not a natural right, but it is a ?civil? right, insofar as
the sovereign is willing to grant it (Chapter 13, ?9). Access to property, according to
Hobbes, is consistent with our need to ?preserve? our lives, but the right to property
(including how much, for what purposes, and how long) is up to the state (Chapter 24).
There are social and economic inequalities in Hobbes? ideal society, but all subjects are
politically equal, and are subservient to the sovereign (Chapter 21). Property is
important for the health of society?it is the lifeblood of the commonwealth? but in the
Leviathan its is subservient to prior interest of maintaining a peaceful and stable society.! !
Locke, in contrast to Hobbes, in his Second Treatise of Government, argues that
property is a natural right and its holding is consistent with natural law (Chapters 2 and
5). He provides a complex defense or justification of the right to property, and argues
————————–
continue my requirement(Locke, in contrast to Hobbes, in his Second Treatise of Government, argues that
property is a natural right and its holding is consistent with natural law (Chapters 2 and
5). He provides a complex defense or justification of the right to property, and argues
that resulting social and economic inequalities are implicitly consensual and serve the
common good (Chapter 5, ?50). All the male, heads of households in the state (and
theoretically, all persons (Chapter 6, ?65 ), are politically equal and have the same
natural rights and liberties.! !
Mill provides and extensive defense of liberty and individuality. In On Liberty, he does
not address economic inequality, but he does defend the need to defend individual
liberties and to restrict monopolies on thought and action, and those forces that restrict
individuality. With liberty comes a degree of social and economic inequality, but he
strictly defends political and legal equality. When thinking about Mill, I suggest you
reflect on the conditions, he thinks and you think would be needed to support the
flourishing of individuality (Chapter 3).! !
Marx and Engels, of course see worsening inequality of all sorts as endemic to
capitalism (9-16). Their reaction is to urge that the proletariat seize power, so that all
can equally flourish. They defend the rights of humans to survive without being
dominated by the bourgeoisie, but they do not defend the liberal idea of liberty. They
regard it as bourgeois. In a capitalist system, they argue that the only thing that is free is
money and wealth�??capital (19-20).
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂