 |
I have a philosophy paper to write and my topic is "Is it right to force democracy on other countries" I need to find example of philosophical theories made by philosophers that either go against or for this question. I would really appreciate any type of help on how to approach this question and I would also appreciate the help. Thank You
The issue with democracy is that it will easily return to old forms if that is the peoples desires, since they will allow it to happen. We see it all the time in areas where we set up governments.
Democracy ( of course that is not the US form of government we are republic) never works well, unless it is fought far and desired by the people.
Do you have any examples of any philosophers that maybe oppose this idea or agree with it. It would really help. Thank You!
Here's one:
"Plato took a dim view of democracy. To Plato, it made no sense that we should proceed to put people in charge who have shaky, or, worse yet, no philosophical positions. A 'democratic' system turns up people to govern on the basis of what the majority of the voters say, a majority which when compared to the number of citizens (non-voting included) is likely in fact to be a minority of people who have no plans, no answers other than that necessary to get themselves elected. Plato may have been right in his views on democracy; the difficulty is Plato's avowed and stated belief that men were unequal to one another. I say unequal, but that is putting it on a too charitable basis. To Plato society was to break down to those few who were to be the philosopher kings, and the rest of us, who were to be treated like labouring beasts of the field. The Platonic view of man is one that is in complete accord with the view of the socialist." --from Plato.
When I Googled "philosophers democracy" (without quote marks), I got all sorts of interesting hits. Do that and/or go to your local public library for more information from the philosophy encyclopedia, etc. Check into Ayn Rand's Objectivism too.
Thank You! I am looking into that at the moment. But, I am still having trouble approaching this topic in a way that makes sense I have considered looking in many different aspects and now I feel that I have many ideas but there is no way that they can flow together or even make sense together nicely. For example, I was looking into the idea of militarism and the U.S. basically looking into the idea that America has gotten addicted to War and how democracy is used as an excuse to go to war. Then, I also looked at the concept of Totalitarianism but I am still not sure how to approach it. Can you please help me.
Why can't you just answer the assigned question? Why do you have to wander off onto side topics?
How long is the paper supposed to be?
Yeah, I mean I understand what you are saying but the point of this paper is to have theories that philosophers have said to in a sense be your evidence or proofs. And, it is very difficult to find philosophers that have a direct opinion to this topic. So, the reason I am kind of wondering off to other topics is because they have more proof. Right now, I am having trouble finding a clear idea around this topic because we have to not only list the pros but also the cons. It is kind of confusing. The paper has to be around eight pages.
Only eight pages? Piece of cake! (I was thinking you had to whip up 30 pages or more.)
What about chewing around on this sentence:
"Men did not evolve into robots; they did not come to possess the independent spirit, so characteristic of man, by serving others; man came to be the superior being, that he clearly is, because of the exercise of free choice, one of the essential ingredients in the evolutionary process." (from the Plato link I posted earlier)
You're throwing in so many related ideas that you are going to miss making the point that you are supposed to make. And yes, there are whole bunches of philosophers that are, for instance, against the idea that one country should not force another into something such as democracy. Of course, the philosophers don't SAY it that way, but Ayn Rand is big on individualism, so that works into free choice. Emerson and Transcendentalism emphasized individualism, self-reliance, and rejection of traditional authority. (The Classical Essayists.)
Now, what do free choice and individualism have to do with democracy? Do an Intro and define democracy first.
So you're saying that I should focus my paper on free choice and individualism and relate it to democracy. Uhhmmm, that is interesting I never thought of it that way. By, doing that then I could answer this question through these two arguments. I kind of understand now. Thank You So Much! You are literally my life saver. See, I am in my last year of high school and I am currently getting a very high mark in Philosophy so I was very scared that I would bring it down because I did not know how to approach this topic.
Ohh, can you give me some of the names of the philosophers that are against the idea because I wanted to research them. So I can get a clear understanding! You are truly a Wonder Girl!
Do you know how to build an outline? If so, do that, so you can keep your thoughts in order. Also, keep this simple. Don't scatter your thoughts and arguments all over the map.
Write a thesis statement that will be in your Intro paragraph. The rest of the outline (and paper) will prove or disprove (or both) that thesis statement. Do you have to use both positive and negative proofs from philosophers, or just go one way (pos or neg)?
I have to use both (positive and negative) arguments.
If I had a dollar for every paper I ever wrote in h.s. and college and grad school, I'd be able to buy out Donald Trump (maybe). The best thing I ever learned was how to write a good outline. We did that around 4th or 5th grade, and the skill has served me well throughout the years.
I gave you a link to Plato. Read more about his philosophy, especially regarding free choice and individualism. Check into Ayn Rand, the Transcendentalists (Emerson, Carlyle, Wordsworth, and Emerson's friend Thoreau), Nietzsche, and of course Kierkegaard. Check into Camus and Sartre too, just in case you can use them for this paper. Start with Wikipedia perhaps to get a good summary of the various philosophers and what they believed.
On the other hand, "Spinoza denies free-will and establishes strict determinism. Human willing is determined by another cause, that by another cause, and thus ad infinitum. Man has the wrong notion that he is free, because he is unable to know the causes that direct his will."
Do not wander around, but define terms and use examples to make your case clean and clear.
Check into Durkheim and his ideas on anomie. Also, read up on Weber and Marx.
Think individualism vs. social determinism.
So your saying to relate social determinism which means that what determines a persons behavior does not depend on their genetic foundation but rather the people around them. Thus, making democracy the ultimate power because an individual has been 'brainwashed' by society that they are unable to think for themselves and making them go along with everyone else into believing that democracy is the ultimate form of government and it should be forced on the world. I don't know if I got what you where saying?
Yeah, something like that -- social determinism is the excuse for forcing democracy, whereas individualism is the reason for leaving other countries alone and allowing them to have free will and be self determining.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
You're going to need 30 pages for this.
Make a list --
Individualism = no forced democracy = philosophers t, u, v, w, x, y, z
Social determinism = forced democracy = philosophers a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Or some such.
Ok! I am so excited now! I was reading somewhere that these are two questions I should be thinking about "Are freedom and democracy the same thing?" and "Will democracy imposed by force guarantee the same thing?" Do you think that I am jumping all over the place again?
Sorry I meant "Will democracy imposed by force guarantee peace?"
No, it sounds like you are still in the ballpark and are running toward home plate for a home run.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
Now, think back on what you were considering writing about. See the difference in where you are now? You are headed toward clarity of thought and concise writing, not flopping around like a landed fish.
Ok! So I am heading in the right direction! I should be focusing on individualism and self determinism those should be my main points that I can built the essay on.
Haaaa, I am writing what you are saying down on a piece of paper and building an outline like you said!
Hi Sandy,Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
As usual Wondergirl has put forward good information and sources.
I would add just a little. The question is of a very general nature and this is evident from the words used in the question, e.g. 'right' 'force' and perhaps even 'democracy'. The word 'right' could meaning anything from moral right to historical rights and anything in between. By the same token 'force' could be understood in a variety of ways. The word 'democracy' is generally understood, but you should still define your terms for the purpose of the essay. For example, democracy being of the elected parliamentary type ( assuming this is how you want to define democracy for the purpose of your essay).
On this basis I would carefully define these keys words in your introduction. Your definitions are of course important because they will serve as the basis of your arguments.
You can attach any meaning you like to key words provided you have said how they are to be understood. This is because these words are of a general nature. Put forward definitions and stick to those definitions throughout the essay. Doing this will also help organize your thinking.
Regards
Tut
Would this last paragraph that I was reading be part of Social Determinism
Whatever its virtues, democracy is not freedom. As the 19th Century French philosopher Alexis d'Toqueville warned in his classic Democracy In America, a democracy can be just as tyrannical as a dictatorship once the voters decide to vote themselves money from the treasury.
Democracy is a method of deciding who shall rule. It does not determine the morality of the resulting government. At best, democracy means that government has popular support. But popular support is no guarantee that government will protect your freedom.
In a democracy, if most voters support freedom of speech, press, religion, association and enterprise, their elected government will probably respect such freedoms.
But if voters prefer that governments impose a welfare state and confiscatory taxes, ban unapproved drugs, impose censorship, imprison critics, seize the property of unpopular groups, torture prisoners, and draft the young, a democratic government will likely grant those wishes also.
Self determinism and individualism vs. social determinism (forced democracy)
Yes, but it clouds your discussion. Stick to the basics. You have only eight pages and tons of philosophers who speak to your basic idea. Don't get confusing and messy.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
I'm thinking de Tocqueville's Democracy in America discusses why republican representative democracy has succeeded in the United States while failing in so many other places. That might be food for another paper. Can you link it to this one?
I hope it does not sound confusing when I finish the paper because right now it does not seem that I will be able to write out a proper paper. But, I guess that is what researching is about first understand everything you have to know on your topic and then when you have a clear understanding begin to write.
Yeah, I think your right that would be food for another table.
Make your outline. If you do that right, it will write your paper for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
Introduction (thesis statement and definition of terms)
I. Individualism
A. Philosopher T
1. beliefs
2. quotes
B. Philosopher U
1. beliefs
2. quotes
etc.
II. Social Determinism
A. Philosopher A
1. beliefs
2. quotes
B. Philosopher B
1. beliefs
2. quotes
etc.
III. Discussion
IV. Conclusion
Or some such. Or make a chart instead of an outline, but keep your ideas and researched info in good order.
You have plenty of philosophers on both sides, so you may want to avoid philosophers like Machiavelli and Hobbes who believed in the inherent selfishness of the individual (individualism) which led them to adopt a strong central power as the only means of preventing the disintegration of the social order (social determinism).
See how muddy that makes your discussion -- unless, of course, you want to add philosophers like that who swing both ways.
When you wrote discussion does that mean my stand on which side I agree with
Yeah, I think I'll avoid those particular philosophers just because I think it will get messy.
As to your question about forcing democracy on others, read the daily papers. Russia and Iraq are prime current examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
It took the West 1500 years to work itself into "democracy". So, no, democracy cannot be forced onto societies. They must gradually absorb what it means and its principles. Tribal societies cannot change overnight.
Discussion is where you tie everything together to prove your thesis. You bring in each philosopher to show how each proves your point. You've already discussed each one in some detail, so now hit the high point for each to prove the social determinism or the individualism. The Discussion pulls everything (all previous points) together for the reader.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
The Conclusion is the summary and restatement of the thesis.
When is this due?
Are you more comfortable with this paper now?
I am kind of comfortable with this paper. Although, I am still finding it hard to relate social determinism to this topic. Right now I am reading Nietzsche and his ideas of individualism.
The paper is not due in 3 weeks. But, we are having a discussion in class (seminar) on topics and on wed. I have to present this topic. Its kind of like you said I have to present a outline and it has to be 10 min long.
Social determinism = we need democracy (government) because we need to take care of each other; we're all in this togetherQuote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
Would this be useful for indivdualism
"Pericles himself made it clear that the laws must guarantee equal justice “to all alike in their private disputes”; but he went further. “We do not feel called upon,” he said, “to nag at our neighbor if he chooses to go his own way.”
Wasn't Pericles pro democracy?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:01 AM. |