Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The 4 political theories
The 4 political theories
Four Political Theories
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This essay will argue the critical point, that Costas Douzinas does recycle, but he also updates Jeremy Bentham’s early approach to rights, by using a modern day approach to his theory. Both Bentham and Douzinas agreed that rights were created by people with power and are told that they are to protect the people without it . Rights are seen to be a tool that is implemented by the government in order to obtain further power over the everyday citizen. This can be seen when there is a protest of human rights, the everyday citizen protests non-violently, but the violence only invariably comes from the police, or the government when trying to stop these protests.
Further similarities were seen between the two theorists in the way that they agree that rights were “unlimited and unprincipled collection of empty entitlements” . Bentham can be seen as being someone who condemned natural rights altogether, as they do not provide each living individual with liberty. Douzinas can see rights as being something that may implement a great deal into our community, and has a great deal of potentia...
The 19th century set the stage for different policies that lead to the extending of America’s power, which is defined as imperialism. Imperialism started for different reasons like the Americans wanting the U.S. to expand or explore the unknown land, or even some feared existing resources in U.S. might eventually dry up. The reason imperialism started doesn’t really matter, but more of what it caused. Imperialism lead to Cuban assistance, the addition of Hawaii and Alaska to America, and Yellow Journalism.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
The English Bill of Rights (1689) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) are roughly around the same period, in that it is possible to think the both documents share similar ideologies. To the thought’s dismay, it is not. Even if both documents start from the same question of taxation, the outputs vary enormously in that each has different aims: the English Bill of Rights (shortened as the English Bill from now on) only changes the crown and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (shortened as the French Declaration) changes the whole society. However, they are similar in that both strived for the representation of the masses.
Hayden, Patrick. "13. Bentham." Philosophy of Human Rights. Paragon House, 2001. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <https://courses.ryerson.ca/bbcswebdav/pid-2707097-dt-content-rid-2644870_2/courses/phl400_f12_01/Jeremy%20Bentham%20-%20Anarchical%20Fallacies.pdf>
As I have shown, throughout his essays, Gordon establishes a narrative of the past in the Diaspora which is distinctly negative, drawing on images of the Jewish people as passive and parasitic, alienated from nature and labor and accordingly without a living culture. Through his ideology, Gordon establishes an idea of the perfect relationship between people, nature and labor; a relationship that must be withheld in order for a people to be a living, creative culture. Gordon asserts that the Jewish people have been kept apart from the natural sphere in their own land in which they developed as a people, and have been severed from direct contact with nature in the countries where they are living in Diaspora, thus creating a strictly negative identity for the Diasporic Jews. The Diaspora experience is presented by Gordon as an identity defining experience that is presupposed as part of the Jewish self-understanding. The ideology of Gordon indicates that the Diaspora was a degrading and negative experience for all Jews:
The multiculturalism idea is about how to respond towards challenges that are associated with religious and cultural diversity. The term is used as a descriptive term that characterizes the diversity facts in the society. The proponent of multiculturalism rejects the melting point idea though the term has encompasses a variety of claims. The melting point idea is that members of the minority group maintain a distinct collection of practices and identities.in general multiculturalism means the practices and policies that respond and recognizes ethnic diversity (Roach et al, 2005 pg. 37). The first black president elected in us Barack Obama describes the different points of view regarding multicultural societies. Though each Atlantic side are
One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.
However, a cosmopolitan would argue that the ethical value and rights granted should apply to every individual, instead of communities or nations. Even David Miller recognizes that it is natural to believe we have a certain obligation or responsibility to others outside our own nation, such as the world’s poor. This is because we are all human and have a humanitarian impulse inside us that makes us concerned with the well-being of others.
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
With the development of society, world becomes smaller and smaller and gradually y becomes a big family. Every people try their best to blend in this big family. The purpose of cosmopolitanism is more likely for people now to achieve. Kwame Anthony Appiah, the author of “Making Conversation and the Primacy of Practice”, not only asserts that cosmopolitanism is the name of challenge but also suggests that there are two strands that intertwine in the notions of cosmopolitanism. While on the other hand, Steve Olson, the author of “The End of Race: Hawaii and the Mixing of Peoples” provides real examples of the racial harmonious mixing and cultural appreciation among the different ethnic groups in Hawaii and he also argues that there is actually
Cultural Appropriation versus Multiculturalism In today's society, there are many different cultures that individuals identify with. Culture is very important to many people and is something that helps define who we are. When different cultures are respected and appreciated, it is a beautiful thing, it can bring individuals in society closer to one another. Ideally, this understanding of one another’s cultures can lead to multiculturalism.
Britain is and always has been a mixed race society. Gradually over the years, millions of people all over the world arrive either through past invasion or come as an immigrant to escape their own country’s famine, persecution and seeking for better economic opportunities in the UK (Zafra, 2007). The history of immigration and invasion has produced today’s diverse community. However, for the past few years, there has been a dispute concerning whether multiculturalism has obstruct the goal of attaining a peaceful community and instead causing extremism in the UK. According to Michelle Wilkinson (2011), this is resulted by the notion that multiculturalism promotes segregation and different groups having different beliefs leading to heavy tension and radicalization. On the other hand, multiculturalism has also been praised for advancing equality and social recognition (Caroline Howarth & Eleni Andreouli, 2013). In the light of this controversial issue, both aspect of the pro and cons of Multiculturalism to the society will be covered in this essay, exploring as a whole whether the ideology of Multiculturalism in enforcing equality has worked in Britain or not.
This definition of International Society is from perspective of realist. In short, the basic idea of international society is the society which individual and states shape to live in with the social elements of realism raw logic of anarchy.(Buzan 2001) Moreover, the main frame of International society is about the two concepts which are pluralism and solidarism and how these concepts define international society. Pluralism is about the political distinction and difference. In this concept, international society based on shared concerns of international order such as anarchy, sovereignty, diplomacy and nonintervention. Pluralism underlines the instrument side of international society to balance the excessive disorder threat in an international anarchy. While, Solidarism is about the shared norms in international society such as limitation things on the use of force, and acceptable “standard of civilization” with regards of human rights and states and civilization relationship. In this notion, sovereignty can also consider as many degrees of political convergence (as in the EU). (Buzan 2001) These two concepts play key role in the definition of international society because they are linked together to outline the key theory of international society. In short, both concepts agree that International society is the states system with common agreed rules, values and institutions (Bellmay 1975).
Multiculturalism, many would describe this term to be just multiple cultures crossing paths but in actuality it 's has many unique definitions to a series of groups and individuals. The IFLA, international Federation of Library Associations defines it as “the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviours, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles”. The term entails a lot more than just a certain group or specific thing. It is often misconstrued to be just a cultural complexity among society. Multiculturalism has a lot to do with how one is brought up, and on a more individual level.
The experience of the Diaspora is the perceived historical background for Gordon’s essays; everything he writes about the future in Palestine, he writes in the perspective of the past in the Diaspora. In the following I shall present Gordon’s view on how the Diaspora experience affected the Jewish people, to show how he creates a negative identity for the Jews of the past. As the following quote show, Gordon’s view of the Jewish existence in the Diaspora and what it had done to the Jews as a people was exceedingly negative: