Political Philosophy and Political Obligation The author states his thesis as “the central, or most fundamental, question of political philosophy is the question of political obligation”. The question of political obligation has always been the center of discussion. Why would anyone consent to be governed by the state? This question has been supported with the centrality thesis. This question can not be ignored since it has to do with the everyday lives of human beings. However, modern political philosophers have not dealt with supporting arguments towards the thesis. They have also failed to provided a sound critique against it. With the help of other modern philosophers, the author gives himself great authority to aid the reader with his own arguments for the thesis. The author divides his arguments in favor of the thesis into five parts. Part one concerns …show more content…
The author comes up with the conclusion that he has underestimated the importance of the question of political obligation. He states that the centrality thesis is a claim that only arises for “liberal or individualistic political philosophers”. He says that liberals need the question of political obligation in appose to non-liberals. If you look at the concept of political obligation collectively it will become irrelevant. If, however, the concept is looked at in an individualistic way, tables turn. Individualist cherish the value of a human life. To them every individual has a right to life and liberty in equality. Proposals that promote the well-being of all, whether it’s the underprivileged or the average working class, justice is prioritized. People of this political viewpoint need to be convinced of the benefits of government. To get them to sacrifice some basic rights in turn for overall control by a selected few is often a troublesome task. The more controlling and powerful a government is, the less it appeals to
The organization of the argument of this paper is not particularly imaginative since this writer “lists” elements in a strictly sequential order, but he or she demonstrates familiarity with a wide range of documents and concepts of the Reader while working closely with the specific language of the document he or she is presenting.
Another way the organization strengthens his argument is by having clear topic sentences all supporting Soth’s thesis. These topic sentences are usually interpretations, but as explained in the previous paragraph, very well-supported. This...
the end of this paper I will show how I come to this conclusion. First I will tell the story in my
Let us begin by noting that any basic social structure faithful to liberal principles of political justice will inevitably prove nonneutral in its effects on many comprehensive doctrines and ways of life. This will be true for politically unreasonable doctrines and ways of life (militantly theocratic doctrines, or ways of life centered on violating the basic rights of others). But it may also prove true for comprehensive doctrines and ways of life more or less unopposed to most liberal political values (perhaps the doctrines or ways of life of certain traditional or anti-modern religious sects).
was not solely at fault. The purpose of this paper is to analyze some of these tidbits of
This text focuses on social structures as well as the function of a legitimate government. It introduces the idea of a “social contract”, and discusses a state of nature in which all beings are naturally in until joining
The subject of this essay should be obvious from the title. Considerable detail is included in this presentation of the facts on the issue.
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that we, as citizens, have the right to free speech. Our freedom, however, comes with responsibilities that must be respected in order to maintain independence in our country.
These features have in a larger way eroded advancements in western civilization. The ideals of individualism, personal interest at the expense of political engagement and reason have been particularly affected. He makes comment on moral energy leading to the rise of what we currently view as modernity. Jean’s “Democracy on trial” on the other hand tries to address the issue of regulation and the political economy. The writer comes to the conclusion that governments do not simply make regulations out of nowhere. There are motivations for such actions (Taylor,
This topic is a very controversial one. The paper you are about to read could cause intense arguments between some groups of people. All that doesn’t matter to me because when you finish reading this, you will agree with me if you don’t already.
The main purpose of this essay is to explain why and under what conditions some
This essay does not agree with the viewpoint with that of Stuart Rachels and supports its position with some theory.
In this essay I will be arguing about 2 political ideologies; this essay will be highlighting the comparison and contrast between the 2 ideologies and their elements. The 2 ideologies that will be discussed are liberalism and conservatism, the essay will explain what ideology is, a brief explanation of their elements and the comparison between them. In my opinion the best between both ideologies is liberalism, the reason I think that is because liberalism places an ontological supremacy upon the individual and has no value more important than freedom because man’s natural state is when he is free unlike conservatism that has a very pessimistic view of humans and claims that individuals are morally corrupt.
From the beginning of ancient history the main question for political philosophy is how a human being exists in society, who should govern the society, how should the society be governed, who are the best rulers and how should they behave themselves, what is just and what is unjust, is better to be governed through just or not, how should the states be structured? These are main questions in political philosophy, that until today are strictly discussed. The major tasks of political philosophers are to analyze the nature of human being and to evaluate the ways in which an individual relates with society he lives in. The study of human nature is one of the most important aspects of political science and philosophy. In the process of creating a form of governance it is essential to understand the innate characteristics of human nature in order to avoid a bad government for all society and to achieve the ways how people should be governed most effectively. From the ancient time the roots of justification of political power were tied to sights of human nature.
According to all three professors Seymour Martin Lipset, Juan Linz, Donald Horowitz, they are strongly suggesting their main politically argument based on the concept of presidential and parliamentary system. The stability of presidential system is that two-candidate races in multiparty systems produce coalitions including extremist parties. The balance between branches varies and with fixed term in office comes the risk of ‘vouloir conclure’. The parliamentary system’s stability describes that it has superior historical performance to presidential system. This is especially in societies with political cleavages-multiple parties. The continuity of this party is power and there is duration of coalition.