 |
Wonder Girl would it be terribly rude of me to go to sleep. I have been up since 8 studying and now my eyes have gotten so heavy that I am starting to fall asleep. Do you think we can keep discussing this tomorrow? If you have time because I think discussing it with you is really helping me. Thank you so much x a billion for your help. I'll talk to you tomorrow hopefully :)
P.S I'll wait till you respond before going to bed.
To be sure! Go to bed! I'm a night owl.
Sleep well, and see you tomorrow.
Thanks so much. See you tomorrow!
Let's begin to pull this together.
"Is it right to force democracy on other countries?"
You have only eight pages. The Intro (and thesis statement, definition of terms) may take up most of the first page. Figure out how you want to lay out the rest of the paper 1) with the "yes" discussion taking up, say, three pages, and the "no" discussion taking up three pages, and then the conclusion at the end on page 8, or 2) you can name your philosophers and the quotes that apply for "yes" and for "no" on four pages, and then throw them all together into a discussion section on pages 6 and 7, then the conclusion on page 8. I personally would go with choice 1) -- sounds more organized and cohesive.
Also, choose your philosophers for each discussion. We've talked about some, but be sure to use those your teacher would approve of. As Athos mentioned, some think Rand was the cat's meow, and others think she was a kook. The Transcendentalists were essayists (and philosophers in a way), but your teacher may spit on them. So be careful whom you choose to be in your paper.
I'd chose three or four philosophers for each side of my discussion, depending on how much value you can get out of each one and how much room you have in your paper.
A) Yes - social determinism, the residents of that country need to give up their old ways and become like "us," must be unified as a whole country, unified in purpose of all for one. Decide on which three or four philosophers fall into this, find quotes that apply, and fit them into the discussion.
B) No - individualism/self-determinism, the residents of the country are a unique people with their own culture(s) and must be left alone to continue to live as they have always lived (autonomy). Also, changing styles of governing will take generations with probably great resistance and possibly ultimate failure, so is it worth the struggle? Decide on which three or four philosophers fall into this, find quotes that apply, and fit them into the discussion.
Conclusion, restatement of thesis, summing up, etc.
Whaddya think?
I was also thinking of maybe including utilitarianism as part of the reason why they force democracy. How does that sound ?
Okay. I can go with that. Philosophical utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) says that an action is right if it tends to promote "happiness" -- e.g. human rights, social programs to help the least of those among us, etc. The opposite would be egoism, self-motivation, self-interest, individualism, self-determinism.
Do you think that is a good idea? Then I can use that as one of my main arguments for forcing democracy. Would that mean that I could also use the social determinism
Sounds good to me.
I thought social determinism was already part of the paper.
Okay!
Is there any other points on why we should not force democracy on other countries. In terms of a philosophical example.
What reasons do you have so far?Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
Hi! Wonder Girl
Well, I am almost done my essay! I just have to write one more paragraph for my last point but sadly I can't think of any. My other points are self determinism and individualism
Do you have a conclusion?
What about the argument that democracy isn't necessarily the best thing since sliced bread, that other forms of government can work well for countries?
It's beyond individualism and social-determination. In fact, it's the thing that should be considered first, before the idea of individualism vs. self-determinism kicks in. I think it's a good way to end your discussion of the two points. Or even make it the conclusion.
How would I go about writing that like what kinds of theories would I use to support this idea
Here's one --
Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that presumes that a society's technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values. The term is believed to have been coined by Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), an American sociologist.
Use tech determinism as a third possibility, and then conclude with a summarization and the final comment that democracy isn't necessarily the best thing since sliced bread, that other forms of government can work well for countries. Or something like that.
What do you think?
I like it but I think that I have to research it
Now, I only have to do the conclusion and introduction but I'm not sure how to go about doing them. I wanted to use the example of saying that democracy should not be forced and it is similar to a this scenario imagine someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to learn to like seafood;you can force someone to eat it,but not to like it,and chances are good that they'll stop eating as soon as the gun is taken away.
Definitely! And it's not directly opposed to either of the other two.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
Sounds like tribal Afghanistan being forced to become a unified republic and a democracy. As soon as the US leaves, guess what will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 AM. |