Political Philosophy

at
Categories
Tags

 

200-300 words is a good length for a post, but I’m more interested in informed engagement with the material. Here are a few review questions from the reading to get us started.
1. Explain Plato’s conception of justice. How does it differ from contemporary liberal views of justice.
2. Why is Plato no fan of democracy?
3. In what way does Locke see us as having a natural right to liberty?
4. What is the function of government according to Locke an how is it justified?
5. How does Locke justify property rights?
6. Explain the tragedy of the commons an how it present a challenge to a Lockean conception of property rights?
7. How does the creation of wealth and property I our society differ from the idealized individualistic conception Locke offers.
8. Explain Rawls’ two principles of social justice as fairness.
9. How does Rawls’ employ the idea of the original position and the veil of ignorance in supporting his principle of social justice?

Sample Solution

Political Philosophy

Justice has been one of the important issues in the history of philosophy. To both Plato and Aristotle, justice meant goodness as well as willingness to obey laws. To Plato, “justice was one of the highest of virtues.” According to Plato, justice is that in individual life, and in social life, means placing each individual and each class in its proper place. And each class according to prevalence of this capacities, places in the social and moral hierarchy. Justice is a quality, an indispensable quality of moral life. Plato is no fan of democracy. He rejected Athenian democracy on the basis that such democracies were anarchic societies without internal unity, that they followed citizens` impulses rather than pursuing the common good, that democracies are unable to allow a sufficient number of their citizens to have their voices heard.

The use of the death penalty is embedded throughout history, but what is its place in our modern society? Despite the development of more liberal ideas, capital punishment, which is a direct violation of human rights, is still a feature of many justice systems around the world today.

After completing volunteer work for a public pressure group, named Amicus, providing representation for American citizens on death row, I was exposed to the severity of this issue. The death penalty deprives people of the most basic human right; the right to life. Therefore, it is not a question of whether or not we should defend the right to life but rather how we should defend it. Thus, I have decided to research the question; ‘Is it more effective to defend the right to life through the law or through public pressure groups?’

Amicus only works with prisoners on death row in the United States and so I have decided to concentrate the focus of this research question in that region. Therefore, I will be concentrating on American legislation when dealing with the issue of the law in comparison to public pressure groups.

When approaching this question, we must clarify the meaning of ‘public pressure groups.’ A widely accepted definition is ‘an organised group that does not put up candidates for election, but seeks to influence government policy or legislation.’ However, this definition does not specify exactly how the pressure groups persuade the government. This minor detail can determine whether a pressure group is successful or not. Some pressure groups believe that in order to achieve their goal, they must organise violent protests and rallies. Others take a more peaceful approach, such as writing letters to members of parliament or running non-violent campaigns. Amicus is best described as the latter, as they use the law itself to f

This question has been answered.

Get Answer