Masters Political Science Discussion Paper
APA 300vword post
Which of the authors do you agree with the most on the concept of justice? Explain why. Does the author explain the means by which justice should be achieved? After you read your party’s platform (Democratic), which author does the ideology of the party align with the best? After you read the opposition party’s platform, which author does the ideology of the opposition party align with the best? Please use refernces below.
Module Three examined the concept of rights. In doing so, the module debated the source of rights that individuals hold, as well as the type and the extent of rights that should be granted to individuals. Jeremy Bentham (1999) believes that rights come from the law and that individuals do not possess inherent natural rights. Bentham states that “Right and law are correlative terms” (Bentham, 1999, p. 173). The chapter by Ronald Dworkin (1999) focuses on building the foundations of rights around the key principles of human dignity and political equality. One or both become the “minimum” protection for citizens (Dworkin, 1999, p. 179). Students saw examples of rights in the Bill of Rights (1798) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1999). Both documents list rights that individuals should possess. Likewise, the rights listed are rights governments should strive to protect and promote for citizens. Thinking about the types of rights citizens can hold within society helps guide students toward understanding the types of public policies needed to advance those rights.
In Module Four students move from exploring rights to examining justice. What can one consider to be a just society? What are the core principles of such a society? How can one work toward establishing a just society? These become important themes in the Module Four readings and assignments.
John Stuart Mill (1871) presents a utilitarian approach to justice. This moral view claims that actions should be governed by efforts to maximize the overall good and happiness for the maximum number of citizens within society. For Mill (1871), happiness is the goal, for this is what each individual strives to achieve. Individuals should have basic political freedoms as well as a basic level of economic well-being to attain happiness. John Rawls (1999) challenges the utilitarian view of justice. In the article “Two Principles of Justice,” Rawls (1999) presents two essential principles of justice. First, each individual must have equal access to basic liberties. Second, social and economic choices should improve the conditions of all members of society. Rawls is not arguing that the distribution of wealth be equal, but that “it must be to everyone’s advantage” (Rawls, 1999, p. 242). Utilitarianism promotes the greatest good for society, which means some in society may suffer to achieve the greater good. Michael Sandel’s (1999) chapter, “Conceptions of Community,” presents a communitarian view. Arguing in favor of communitarianism, Sandel believes an individual within the society cannot separate the self completely from his or her surroundings or community. Community influences identity and the surrounding environment, and advancing the community promotes the well-being of society. Lastly, John Hospers (1974) focuses on libertarianism. From the libertarianism’s perspective, a just society is a society that protects individual freedoms and individual opportunities, and allows citizens to pursue individual self- interests.
Many of the readings in Module Four are challenging. The two video lectures by Harvard professor Michael Sandel (2011a, 2011b) help place the readings in context by untangling the complexity of the arguments and providing contemporary examples of how the ideas influence policy and social choices. Students are strongly encouraged to watch the two lectures.
As students read the Module Four articles and watch the two videos, they should consider the questions posed throughout the overview. The questions asked are the principal themes addressed in Module Four’s discussion topic assignment. Pay particular attention to how the authors view a just society.
In preparation for the final project, students should consider how the political ideology of each student’s chosen political party compares to the political ideology of the opposition party. In conducting the Final Project Milestone Two assignment, students are encouraged to read the section on conservatism in the course’s textbook (section VII.b.) (Rosen & Wolff, 1999). This provides some perspective on conservatism as an ideology and addresses some of the principal philosophical foundations. This will be valuable in comparing the ideologies of the parties. The other valuable resource is the political party platforms. The platforms provide each party’s central vision for society.<.p>
References
Bentham, J. (1999). Nonsense on stilts. In M. Rosen & J. Wolff (Eds.), Political thought (pp. 172–173). New York: Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1999). Taking rights seriously. In M. Rosen & J. Wolff (Eds.), Political thought (pp. 179–180). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hospers, J. (1974). What libertarianism is. In T. R. Machan (Ed.), The libertarian alternative. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Inc. Retrieved from http://public.callutheran.edu/~chenxi/phil345_122.pdf
Mill, J. S. (1871). Chapter 5. On the connection between justice and utility. Retrieved from http://fair- use.org/john-stuart-mill/utilitarianism/chapter-v
Rawls, J. (1999). Two principles of justice. In M. Rosen & J. Wolff (Eds.), Political thought (pp. 241–245). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosen, M., & Wolff, J. (Eds.). (1999). Political thought. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sandel, M. (1999). Conceptions of community. In M. Rosen & J. Wolff (Eds.), Political thought (pp. 342–344). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sandel, M. (2011a). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? [Episode 2] In Harvard University and WGBH Boston (Co-Production), Justice with Michael Sandel [Video program]. Retrieved from http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-two/#watch
Sandel, M. (2011b). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? [Episode 7]. In Harvard University and WGBH Boston (Co-Production), Justice with Michael Sandel [Video program]. Retrieved from http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-07/#watch
The bill of rights. (1789). In M. Rosen & J. Wolff (Eds.), Political thought (pp. 396–397). New York: Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (1999). United Nations universal declaration of human rights (1948). In M. Rosen & J. Wolff (Eds.), Political thought (pp. 398–402). New York: Oxford University Press.
Project does not have any attached files
