Hey guys: I put my outline too, because I don't feel like I worded my thesis the best ever, so with the outline you can kind of see where I'm coming from with my second sentence.
A society should form a government that is run by the people, and modified through ongoing discussion. Laws should not be overbearing, but citizens have a duty to follow the laws that do exist.
Rousseau—social contract, people form a collective
Rawls—The society must be based upon an agreed upon constitution, and we need to all agree that we can’t impose our world-view onto others.
Mill—government should be changed through a marketplace of ideas, an ongoing conversation
Hegel—the marketplace of ideas works by people sublating and understanding each other
Kant—when people have more responsibility for themselves and their government, they will become more enlightened and wiser
Kant—we must obey laws even if we don’t like them, because categorically we can’t say that everyone should disobey the government
Rousseau—he agrees, disobeying should not be an option
Plato—in Crito he agrees, we must deal with what our society gives us.
This is great, Hannah, and I like that you organize your paper by philosopher instead of just trying to stick them in where ever they fit (the second is usually what I do haha)
ReplyDeleteSome questions to maybe consider:
What happens when laws DO become overbearing (when a tyrant begins to arise)? Do citizens still have a duty to follow them? If not, when does this change over?
How do you insure that ongoing discussion eventually leads to changes of laws, or will this just come naturally?