Panel Schedule

2/21 3:30-4:30 -- Emily (panel: Philip and Jane)
2/27 3:30 -4:30 -- Jessye (panel: Bryce and Jon)
2/28 3:30-4:30 -- Leah (panel: Anthony and Eric)
2/29 7:30-8:30 -- Caroline (panel: Philip and Anthony)
3/1 7:30-8:30 -- Ali (panel: Cesa and Judith)
3/1 3:30-4:30 -- Anna (panel: Bob and Dylan)
3/2 3:30-4:30 -- Taylor (panel: Kiernan and Frances)
3/5 3:30-4:30 -- Kyle (panel: Renee and Leon)
3/6 3:30-4:30 -- Elana (panel: Brian and Kiernan)
3/7 7:30-8:30 -- Maggie (panel: Judith and Philip)
3/8 3:30-4:30 -- Pippin (panel: Allen and Bryce)

Thesis

Democracy needs to be constantly re evaluated by it's subjects, and in doing this we ensure that it remains a just representation of the people that it represents and that gives it power.

I was also going to go into how we as moral beings have the duty to contribute to the public sphere in order to improve our society and help it be as mobile as a a democracy fundamentally should be. I also realize that if i use the word "just", then I'll need to go into the meaning of just by all of the philosophers that are required for our paper, so I'll go into that as well.

Kyle's Thesis

A government must provide jurisdiction, including instilling a sense of duty, only until it is no longer needed because only when individuals have the freedom to think, speak, act, and make mistakes on their own, can they develop the maturity and understanding to become enlightened and contribute, listen to, and engage with others in the public sphere.

p.s. Elise can you help me out grammatically as well :)

Redheads & Caroline

This is pretty long and unwieldy (I'll try to cut it down into one sentence) but does it make sense?

Since individuals are shaped by their historical and societal context, the government has the power to form and influence them. The government’s primary obligation is then to create moral individuals; it exists to be of maximum benefit to the citizen, and this is most successful (ie, citizen’s life is most enjoyable and productive—I’ll make this more eloquent later) when the citizen is surrounded by and interacts exclusively with moral individuals (I’ll define morality in the intro too).

I'll also talk about how the government should go about doing this, but I wasn't sure whether or not to put it directly in the thesis.

Pippin's thesis, Team Rocket, I guess?

The government’s role in its society is its own continuation, precisely balancing national needs with the complacency of the populace, the citizenry filling the role of the creators and judicators, giving the government its conception, as well as holding the threat of rebellion in
the event that a government loses balance to the point where its termination is
necessary. This creates a cycle of a thesis set by the government that if unfavorable by the masses creates an antithesis, which will result in the synthesis of either the rebalance of power or a compromise for the appeasement of the people.

Roughly my thesis-Please comment

Government must understand the difference between desire and need in order to guide the individual to obtaining basic human needs and human rights.

I don't have a coherent thesis yet, this is a first stab at one and it's still in three sentences, but I do think I know what I want to write about.

As humans we are born into very specific situations, which remain enormous influences on our developmental process into citizens of a socity. These situations include but are not limited to pre-formed societies, privilege or lack thereof. As we observe the society we are born into, we experience reactions, which then leads us to shape a sense of morality.

Simple example that will illustrate what I am trying to say:

Someone hits a baby- the baby thinks “ow, pain, pain is bad, therefore hitting is bad.” (Sort of following Rawls’s reasonable and rational)

Also--I have this, and I know they're connected I just haven't quite grasped the concrete link yet...

There is no ideal society, Capitalism is an unsustainable reiteration of a state of nature, and it’s opposite, communism, is unjust, (using Plato/1984/Mao China/USSR). I propose a Social Democracy as a happy medium. Although the capitalist mentality is understandable, that what you earn is yours and only yours, ideally all humans are “reasonable and rational” (Rawls) and ideally then the top one percent of the economic totem pole (ladder? I am blanking on a legitimate way to say this) will see that it is fair, as well as to the benefit of society, to contribute a just amount of their wealth back into society. This top one percent was able to attain their status as so because of the capitalist system in place, in which there will always be some citizens that benefit, but a large majority who do not. As the wealth gap increases, and once this one percent has been established, almost cemented, it becomes impossible for most citizens to be hugely economically successful, no matter what their education or intelligence level may be. Here I will draw slightly on Sartre’s theories of colonialism, namely that the top one percent should see that it is in their best interest to keep some money in the lower classes, because that sustains a market that will buy into whatever industry has made this citizen wealthy in the first place. But hopefully, colonialism aside, the top one percent see contributing back to society as a duty, for in order to ensure success for another generation, they must provide the same environment that they were granted, a society that provides economic opportunity.