What are the direct challenges to that order? After you make their argument, how would one other respond?

By
Responsive Centered Red Button

Need Help with this Question or something similar to this? We got you! Just fill out the order form (follow the link below), and your paper will be assigned to an expert to help you ASAP.

Order Form

This essay assignment asks you to take an interpretive approach using the works that we have read so far (section on Violence, and Section on Liberalism & Conservatism). You must choose one of the two questions. In constructing a response, you can derive your answer from one thinker and incorporate other points as they relate to that aspect. You could also use a synthesis of different thinkers.
Requirements for the essay:
Length must be at least 1500 words, double-spaced typewritten. Judicious and appropriate use of textual evidence to substantiate claims made. Proper introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Grammar and spelling. Depth of argument present is nuanced and demonstrates full understanding of material.
Prompt one:
The twentieth century begins with the historical fact of suffering and destruction (e.g., WWI, WWII, “total war”, Judeocide), that is, human made suffering (i.e., violence of some kind). How is suffering understood in the thinkers that we’ve looked at so far? What is the depth of the problem? What are the solutions? To put this in a slightly cheerier variant: what lessons from this can we learn about the question of violence and what does this teach us about what it means to “live well”?
Prompt two:
An important question of 20th century political theory regards order and obedience in the modern state. Liberal and conservative thought offer competing claims on the nature of individual attachment to the state. Among conservatives, choose one: (Oakeshott, or Schmitt), or John Rawls (Liberal), Michael Sandel (Communitarian), or Hannah Arendt and construct their defense of (or what is needed to be an individual) attachment to the state. What are the criteria upon which they legitimate political order? What are the direct challenges to that order? After you make their argument, how would one other respond? On what specific point(s) does their disagreement rest? Last, whose argument do you find more compelling, and why?

How to create Testimonial Carousel using Bootstrap5

Clients' Reviews about Our Services