 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
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? |
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
||||
Originally Posted by sandyforever
|
||||
|
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
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? |
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
How can a force transferred person force a more senior employee to go to a different
[ 1 Answers ]
2 employees with less seniority have been put in my department and now I have been forced to a different shift
Can the force of an elastic band be equated to a certain poundage of force?
[ 2 Answers ]
This seems like a simple yes, but here is my confusion. A band snaps back faster than an object would free fall. So even if a stretched band was 20 pounds of force, it is pulling at a higher velocity than a twenty pound weight. For example if you do an arm curl with a 20 pounds weight, it...
Find force of gravity, normal force, and net force in Physics
[ 6 Answers ]
A crate of mass m (=10 kg) is placed at rest on a (frictionless) inclined plane, which has an angle (= 30 deg ) above horizontal 1. The force of gravity on the crate is? 2. The normal force on the crate is? 3. The net force on the crate is? 4. How long would it take the crate to slide 8 m...
Foreign Income in two diff countries . But paid tax already in those countries
[ 1 Answers ]
Hi, I am resident alien for Tax Yr 2006. I earned some income in Singapore (3 months) and In India (3 month) in Yr 2006. I guess, I can claim foreign tax credit for India as I am citizen of India and I pass 12 months test. But In Singapore I was on for 5 consecutive months and out of that only...
View more questions Search
|
