How do mechanisms beyond voting facilitate citizen participation in democratic processes while addressing the intersection of minority rights with majority rule in a democratic society
In this final paper, you will be developing your own research question about “democracy” that arises for you through the unit. You will use:
2-3 of our class readings from Unit #3;
at least 1 reading from Weeks 1-2
one concept from an academic encyclopedia;
the included videos in the Unit;
the lectures offered throughout the semester;
and your notes from our class discussions
You develop and pose a question that you are left with after the end of the unit and explore potential answers to it through our resources and discussions.
Directions
Return to your Brainstorming assignment and the feedback I provided.
Introduction
Introduce the specific topic and research question for this paper.
Discuss how you arrived at this topic and question. What is your personal interest in this question? Why should others be interested in this question as well?
Briefly mention the sources you will be using, and preview how they help you answer the question in the remainder of the Paper.
Briefly mention your general answers/theses/responses to your posed question.
In-class Resources Discussion
Discuss how the 3-4 sources from our class start answering the question. You can also include our class discussions and your general notes.
External Resource Discussion
Briefly discuss the meaning of the concept you have selected from the Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyLinks to an external site. as described in the entry.
How does it help shed light on your research question?
How does this concept relate to the 3-4 class sources you included? Does this concept expand on the in-class resources you selected? Or is it offering a completely different approach?
Conclusion
Briefly review your main findings or thoughts.
What questions do you still have?
Works Cited or Bibliography
List the sources you discuss in this paper, including the 3-4 in-class sources, your notes, and Encyclopedia entry
Tips
Imagine you are at a party, where the thinkers we read and discussed are in attendance; everyone is hanging out and talking. Choose 2-3 people we read or heard from and ask them the research question you develop – how would they respond to it?
Choose the texts and thinkers based on your personal curiosity – who do you want to talk to more? Think about more?
When in doubt, go for depth, over breadth: include fewer texts, authors, or themes than you might initially think.
Balance between your own thoughts and ideas, and the thoughts and ideas of your chosen authors and texts. If you were having a live conversation with these writers and thinkers, is everyone getting a somewhat-equal say? Or is someone dominating the conversation?
Use your notes from your own original reading, our live class discussions, and the lectures throughout the semester.
Rubric
A successful final paper:
is between 1500-2000 words long, double-spaced, 12 pt., Times New Roman font, 1-inch margins.
uses Author-Date reference format for sources you cite in-text (for example, Szczurek 2020)
cites to back up assertions or claims (for example, “By oppressing stateless refugees, European nation-states in the 1930s laid the foundations for totalitarian governments. (Arendt 1952)”)
incorporate most or all of the above Directions and Tips.
directly discusses and cites 2-3 texts/videos from Unit #3, at least 1 reading from Weeks 1-2, and includes at least two direct quotations from each of these sources
directly discusses and cites from one entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyLinks to an external site.
has an introductory paragraph that previews who the paper will discuss and your initial answer(s) to the question
has a concluding paragraph that includes 2-4 questions you are still left with about this topic and question.
incorporates feedback you received on your Unit 1 and 2 Responses.
incorporates feedback given on the Brainstorming assignment.
is clearly edited, with few typos or grammatical errors.
Category: Political theory
Essay Topic:
In my essay, I will aim to write a comparative analysis about Locke and Machiavelli’s views on capitalism. I will analyze their ideas on how capitalism affects governance and society. I will utilize the works we studied in class to gain insight into their philosophy and their views on the economic system.
Essay must utilize and somewhat cite The Prince by Machiavelli and Second Treatise on Government by John Locke.
Directions: The length of the essay should be between 3-5 double-spaced pages using Times Roman, 12 point font if you are in HNRS 3300; 5-7 pages if you are in POLS 3720; 6-10 pages if you are in any other upper-division course; 15-20 for any graduate school course. Margins should be no greater than one inch, double-spaced using times roman font. It would be a good idea to pay me a visit during office hours so that we may discuss the content of the essay. It would also be wise to visit the writing lab if your writing is in need of improvement. Good luck.
II Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is two-fold. First, I want you to rehearse an argument from one of the assigned texts. If you are writing on Tocqueville, for example, it is expected that you clearly and concisely present an argument from Democracy in America. Secondly, I want you to critically discuss and evaluate the argument. Thus, it is not only necessary to explain Tocqueville’s views but also to subject them to scrutiny.
III Form of the essay: Every essay should contain:
A. Opening Paragraph and Thesis: In your opening paragraph, you should introduce your topic and include a clearly worded thesis statement that informs the reader of your argument. The thesis can be stated in simple terms. The following would be acceptable: “Hobbes’ defense of absolute monarchy as presented in Leviathan is unsound” or “Given Socrates’ disdain for Athens, his conviction and subsequent execution should not be considered a miscarriage of justice.”
B. Author Summary/ Analysis: You also need to include an author summary or body in which you present the author’s arguments. The idea here is to be clear and concise. Do not provide a general narrative of the text or author’s ideas in general. Only include the parts of a text or author’s ideas necessary to understand your evaluation of it. The author summary will invariably include analysis. To analyze an argument is to make its structure explicit, i.e., identify the premises and conclusions and how the latter are deduced from the former.
C. Argument/ Evaluation: The following step is to evaluate the author’s argument. To evaluate an argument is to identifythe reasons why you support or oppose to the author’s argument.
1. Forms of Argument/ Empirical Evidence and Logical Argument: A good essay can utilize either empirical evidence and logical argument, or both. An empirical argument simply points to a fact in the world that either contradicts the argument of the author or cannot be explained by the author. For example, author “X” claims that democratic countries do not go to war with other democratic countries. There are, however, several instances in which democratic nations have warred with one another. Given that this is a theory course, we do not systematically cover empirical objections to an author’s contentions. Nonetheless, you are free to find any such evidence and incorporate in your essays. With regard to logical arguments, simply deduce conclusions from stated premises. The author could be wrong on a few fronts here. It is possible that he or she has weak or unsubstantiated premises. It is also possible that their conclusions don’t logically flow from their premises. An argument any violate any number of fallacies.
a. The Genetic Fallacy: This fallacy involvesdiscrediting the argument on the basis of its origin. For example, Elmer only supports a reduction in the capital gains tax because he is rich. That may be true, but Elmer may still get the argument right despite his selfish motives. There is a tradition of social criticism that seeks to uncover the lowest possible motive for holding an opposing position. Once this motive is formulated, it is automatically attributed to the opposing author. Be sure to avoid such intellectual laziness.
b. Ad populum: This fallacy refers to an appeal to popular prejudices. For example, extended warranties are very popular with consumers. Therefore, such warranties must be a good deal for the consumer. With regard to this class, do NOT hold up contemporary American moral attitudes as the yardstick by which to judge authors from other cultures and ages, e.g., Confucian social theory is wrong because it fails to honor the value of social equality. While it is perfectly legitimate to make criticize social inequality, you need to back up your assertion with logical argument. The fact that a majority of Americans now believe something is not evidence that it is true.
c. Fallacy of False Alternatives: This fallacy refers to over-simplifying the alternatives and setting up false choices. For example, Bill isn’t going to vote for the democrats, which proves he is a fascist. Obviously, there is a lot of ground between Barack Obama and Benito Mussolini.
d. Fallacy of the Texas Sharpshooter/ Confirmation Bias/ Slanting: There is a family of fallacies that involve citing data that supports an argument and ignoring all contrary evidence. For example, the fallacy of the Texas sharpshooter occurs when an individual ignores differences in data while focusing on the similarities. For example, match.com suggests Elmer and Betsy are compatible because they both like pizza, the rock band U2, and New York City. This ignores, however, all that they don’t have in common, such as Elmer is gay and hates lawyers while Betsy is a lawyer for a right-wing group trying to abolish gay marriage. Or, to take another example, it would be fallacious to argue that liberals are Nazis because Hitler held positions and engaged in practices that liberals now find appealing, such as animal rights and vegetarianism. Similarly, someone who contends that soda is good for you because it has antioxidants or vitamin C and ignores that it also contains sugar and many things that are bad for you is guilty of slanting or confirmation bias. Finally, someone who cites two studies showing that fat is bad for people but ignores the five that reject such findings is likewise guilty of slanting or confirmation bias.
e. Fallacy of Composition. This fallacy makes the mistake of assuming what is true for one or some members of a group is true for the group as a whole. For example, Peggy Sue is quick to anger. Therefore, we can conclude that women have anger management problems. It is very easy to speak or write dismissively of a class of people based on a few examples and act as if they apply to all members of that group. It is, however, a logical fallacy.
f. Appeals to Authority: In addition, be careful when citing an expert to prove your case. First of all, experts can be wrong. Secondly, other experts might disagree with your expert. Third, sometimes people cite experts on things in which they are not experts. For example, think about the following argument: “Einstein is a pacifist, which proves that all war is wrong.” Einstein, remember, is not an ethicist or international relations scholar. His opinion on these matters is no more informed than your own.
2. Four Simple Questions: If you have yet to take a logic class, it is best to ask yourself a few questions, such as: 1) what point is the author trying to make? 2) How does he or she prove his or her point? 3) What problems related to the author’s point have not been raised? 4) What are the implications of the author’s arguments? Invariably, your essays will be somewhat speculative. It is unlikely that you will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the author is wrong.
3. Don’t Shoot from the Hip: Finally, do not try to be too hip, ironic, clever, and so forth. To make a persuasive argument, it is necessary to remove your tongue from your cheek. Your tone is very important. If the reader gets the sense you are either biased or condescending, he or she may not take your arguments very seriously.
D Objections/ Author Rebuttal: Fourth, consider objections to your thesis. Often, this takes the form of an author rebuttal. That is, if you are critical of an author, think about he or she might respond. To introduce this part of the essay, you may simply state: “Plato [the author being considered] may respond” or “Critics may object…” or “It might be objected that…” Make sure to take criticisms of your thesis seriously. If you present weak arguments against yourself when obvious stronger alternatives are available, the reader will not be convinced by your essay. This is sometimes referred as the straw man fallacy. Philosophical essays of the sort I am describing have a dialogic character. Your job is to construct both sides of the dialogue. You should thus make sure to give careful consideration to all possible viewpoints. Again, if you win the argument too easily, it is a sign that you have not seriously considered possible objections.
E Replies to Objections: Fifth, you need to reply to the objections. Again, you ought to use empirical evidence and logical argument. Again, the goal is to be clear, concise, and fair-minded. If you win your argument too easily, then perhaps you should take another look at your criticisms.
F Conclusion: Sum up your essay.
essay topic: Carefully analyze and evaluate Mill’s argument for “experiments in living” and “eccentrics” in chapter three of On Liberty. Is Mill right that eccentrics will advance society, promote the development of individual reason, and are in need of protection from majority tyranny?