Use these readings as your sources:
https://iep.utm.edu/justwest/ https://iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/ https://iep.utm.edu/locke-po/ https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/ https://iep.utm.edu/legalpos/ https://iep.utm.edu/distributive-justice/ https://iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/ https://iep.utm.edu/poli-obl/ https://iep.utm.edu/m-p-puni/ https://plato.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2017/entries/civil-disobedience/
Come up with interesting title, don’t just use “argumentative essay/paper”
Use direct quotes from sources sparingly, if at all. Use source in your own words.
There should be a clear, formal essay structure, including a strong introduction paragraph with a clear and specific thesis statement. Should be formatted into clear paragraph transitions rather than large blocks of text.
Be very specific and detailed in your arguments and explanations, provide examples.
Topic options
Critically analyze Hobbes’ conception of human nature. The argument that you present should carefully consider the following types of questions. Is Hobbes’ portrayal and understanding of the state of nature accurate? Is Hobbes correct to assert that the absence of a common umpire/leader would result in a war of all against all? If his proposition that the state of nature is a war of all against all is true, then is his conclusion that we need a government with an all-powerful sovereign also true? Does sovereign power need to be absolute so that chaos does not result? What problems, if any, does Hobbes potentially overlook?
Critically analyze the various government policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., lockdowns, social distancing, masking requirements, vaccine requirements, etc.) through the lenses of Hobbes AND Locke. The argument that you present should carefully consider the following types of questions. What would Hobbes and Locke each say about the ways that the government (state, federal, local) responded to the public health incident? What would Hobbes and Locke say about tendencies of human nature, and how might they have predicted aspects of the ways in which people responded to the COVID-19 pandemic? In what ways would Hobbes and Locke either support government response to COVID-19 or reject government response to COVID-19?
Critically analyze the notion of “universal human rights” as outlined and presented by the United Nations. The argument that you present should carefully consider the following types of questions. If we are to believe that human rights are in fact “universal,” is it problematic that the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) is only aspirational in its scope and it does not provide a clear and specific framework of implementation for countries to actually achieve the stated goals? In what ways does the legal sovereignty (independence) of each country present a fundamental challenge to any effort to establish universal norms and rights? In other words, can the establishment of universal human rights coexist with the legal sovereignty of each country?
Critically analyze originalism as a mode of Constitutional interpretation. The argument that you present should carefully consider the following statements. Originalism is the only form of constitutional interpretation that judges should use because when judges use originalism, they stick close to the specific text of the Constitution and the historical intentions of the Framers. When judges do not use originalism, they become unaccountable, elite rulers issuing their own personal political opinions to the facts of a case and as a result the process of judicial review becomes a deviant practice in a democracy. Evolving and changing the meaning of the Constitution for modern times should not be left up to judges. Instead, that change needs to take place via the formal constitutional amendment process. Additionally, the evolving moral values of our society should be explicitly expressed in the elected legislative branches of the government via the formal laws that get passed.
Critically analyze arguments about obeying the law and when and if punishment is justified by considering a response to the following statements. The greatest threat to individual rights comes from the government itself. An individual should be able to drive without a seat belt if they choose to do so. The government has no business giving that individual a ticket. Individuals should be free to engage in deviant acts provided they do not violate anyone else’s rights in the process. The government should not engage in passing moralistic legislation that tells individuals how to live their lives.
Critically analyze the argument by John Rawls that in order to develop a “pure” form of justice that is the most fair, we must use a “veil of ignorance” in which no one knows their age, sex, race, intelligence, strength, social position, family wealth, religion, life goals, etc. The argument that you present should carefully consider the following types of questions. If we were truly unaware of these particular facts about ourselves, would we truly propose social rules that are neutral and fair, or would we still be likely to produce rules that favor certain characteristics, such as intelligence, strength, and wealth? In a truly fair and just society under this “veil of ignorance,” what, if any, role is there for the government? Would the government rule with a “strong” presence or a “weak” presence, and why? Would there be true equality in this society? Would we still see differences in others, and would that be problematic? Why or why not?