RRR #2. Marx and Mill all offer competing visions of liberty.
Please answer the following 3 questions. Answers should reflect a detailed understanding of the philosophers and clear critical thinking
1. (AROUND 2-2.5 pages) Marx and Mill all offer competing visions of liberty. Please answer the following for each philosopher.
• What does liberty look like? How is it achieved?
• What are the relationships between the individual, the community, and the government? - ie how do these thinks interact to increase or limit liberty?
• What are the weaknesses of each philosopher in their version of liberty - what do they miss?
• If you were trying to expand liberty in the United States which philosopher would you follow and why?
2. (AROUND 2-2.5 pages) Rawls and Nozick offer competing visions of justice. Please answer the following for each philosopher.
• What does justice look like? How is it achieved?
• What are the relationships between the individual, the community, and the government? - ie how do these 3 interact to increase or limit justice?
• What are the weaknesses of each philosopher in their version of justice- what do they miss?
• Which version of justice should the United States follow and why?
3. (AROUND 1-2 pages) Postmodernism present a unique critique of enlightenment ideas.
-What new ideas does postmodernism bring to the table?
-What flaws does it expose about the accepted practices of knowledge and knowledge generation?
-What implications does it hold for politics, economics, US society? Be sure to discuss both pros and cons.
Please be sure to incorporate viewpoints from the two newspaper articles listed below.
1. https://www(dot)theguardian(dot)com/books/2018/jul/14/the-death-of-truth-how-we-gave-up-on-facts-and-ended-up-with-trump
2. https://www(dot)washingtonpost(dot)com/outlook/postmodernism-didnt-cause-trump-it-explains-him/2018/08/30/0939f7c4-9b12-11e8-843b-36e177f3081c_story.html
Instructor
Course
Date
RRR #2
1 Marx and Mill all offer competing visions of liberty. Please answer the following for each philosopher
Over the centuries, liberty has been considered as one of the foundations of human activities. As such, Karl Marx's and J.S. Mill were some philosophers who gave their understanding of liberty and their analysis of how it can be achieved. Notably, there are major differences between the Marxist and Millsian perspective of liberty. According to Williams (632), Marx holds that liberty entails developing human capacity by providing a rational social system. In this sense, liberty is not something in which human beings can enjoy when isolated or alienated. Marx does not consider liberty as the absence of restraints rather being provided with an environment to live life to the fullest.
In contrast, Mill describes liberty as the absence of social and legal coercion. Mill states that liberty is experienced when human beings are provided with the ability to express themselves through expression, association, and action. In his views, liberty enhances progress and exploration as people can discover the convictions of their views, opinions, or actions (Englert 553). Liberty cannot be achieved through democratic processes as the views and opinions of the minority tend to be ignored.
According to Mill, individuals tend to receive several benefits from the community and the government. In return, individuals have the responsibility of returning these benefits they receive. For example, any individual who receives society's protection is mandated to offer certain duties and responsibilities (Englert 554). On the other hand, the individual has to obey all the rules set by their government. Additionally, individuals should honor their community by not interfering with the interests of other people or hurting them (Englert 554). Another important aspect is that individuals have to make sacrifices that seek to defend their community. As a result, there is an aspect of governments and society limiting liberty by requiring them to behave in a certain way.
According to Marx, the structures of any society are determined by its economical features. Society is divided into two classes: the poor and rich, whereby capitalism promotes the exploitation of the poor (workers) by the rich (bourgeoisie). He also stated that most governments are usually in the hands of capitalists, especially the wealthy, who try to control and influence other individuals in society (Flaherty 207). Most governments are likely subsidiary businesses of wealthy capitalists who usually make all attempts to oppose any policies or actions that may affect their profits or actions such as environmental degradation. In this sense, individuals' and societies' liberty is usually limited by excessive influence wealthy individuals have on governments.
Both Mill's and Marx's perspectives on freedom are right but may be characterized by several weaknesses. To begin with, it is not right for Marx to state that having various classes of people in society may limit the achievement of maximum freedom. In essence, it is impossible to have a society whereby all people belong in the same class. It is essential to provide individuals with environments that enhance their liberty and freedom but judging people on the basis of their class or wealth is not ideal. In essence, adopting a communist system will not in any promote liberty and freedom; rather, it will lead to chaos on how to divide the various available resources. On the other hand, Mill's perspective is based on a concept of perfectionism, whereby all individuals are happy with society's activities and actions. For example, it is not ideal to state that implementing the majority's will is equivalent to denying the minority their liberty. In one way or another, it is only common that human beings will have to live with certain decisions that are socially or legally coerced to them.
If I were trying to expand liberty in the United States, I would mainly follow several concepts forwarded by Mill. In essence, Mill's perspective has advocated promoting freedom by giving people the ability to express their actions, views, and opinions. As a result, his perspective is much more ideal for integrating into the U.S. social system. Marx's perspective may not work because it mainly advocates for communism suggestions that may be challenging to implement in the U.S.
2. Rawls and Nozick offer competing visions of justice. Please answer the following for each philosopher.
Rawls and Nozick tend to have contrasting views in their analysis of justice. In essence, Rawls describes justice as fairness, whereby citizens in a society should hold equal basic rights and should cooperate within an equal economic system. In this sense, Ra...