[sandyforever]

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.

[sandyforever]

Haaaa, I am writing what you are saying down on a piece of paper and building an outline like you said!

[TUT317]

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

Hi Sandy,

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

[sandyforever]

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.

[Wondergirl]

Self determinism and individualism vs. social determinism (forced democracy)

[Wondergirl]

Would this last paragraph that I was reading be part of Social Determinism

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.

[Wondergirl]

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?

[sandyforever]

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.

[sandyforever]

Yeah, I think your right that would be food for another table.

[Wondergirl]

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.

Make your outline. If you do that right, it will write your paper for you.

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[sandyforever]

When you wrote discussion does that mean my stand on which side I agree with

[sandyforever]

Yeah, I think I'll avoid those particular philosophers just because I think it will get messy.

[Athos]

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

As to your question about forcing democracy on others, read the daily papers. Russia and Iraq are prime current examples.

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.

[Wondergirl]

when you wrote discussion does that mean my stand on which side i agree with

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.

The Conclusion is the summary and restatement of the thesis.

When is this due?

Are you more comfortable with this paper now?

[sandyforever]

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.

[sandyforever]

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.

[Wondergirl]

I am kinda 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.

Social determinism = we need democracy (government) because we need to take care of each other; we're all in this together

[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.”

[Wondergirl]

Wasn't Pericles pro democracy?