Philosophy Description the format should be in this order: abstract introduction definition theoretical framework history of non violent approach in the world a case study of nonviolent philosophy- india application of non violent philosophy in modern day conflict conclusions references
Philosophy Description Look at the attached file for information. I would like for you to do 1 or 2. Attached information and slides on questions 1 and 2.
Philosophy Description Instructions are attached MOVIE IS LORD OF THE FLIES BOOK IS LEVIATHAN CHAPTER VI and CHAPTER XIII AND XIV
Philosophy Description Phil. 101 – Introduction to Philosophy & Its History, II – Spring 2017 Dr. Evans Final Essay – Mill’s On Liberty You must use appropriate quotations from Mill to support what you say. If you use none, I will lower your grade. Answer the questions in Part I, and either A or B in Part II. Part I. According to Mill, what is the tyranny of the majority? Why is it a danger in a democracy? What is the connection, according to Mill, between why he thinks it is wrong to silence dissenters, whether their ideas are true or false, and the development of our human powers? Part II. Answer either Part A or Part B. A. A few years ago, Michael Oren, Israel’s then-Ambassador to the U.S., was invited to speak at the University of California at Irvine. He was invited by their Law School and Political Science Department. Prior to his appearance members of the Muslim Student Union at UCI, in a statement, said that they “condemn and strongly oppose the presence of Michael Oren on our campus today. (He) represents a state that continues to cosponsor human rights violations (and) propagates murder. . . .” Oren was less than two minutes into his talk when the first heckler jumped and shouted, “Propagating murder is not an expression of free speech,” followed by thunderous applause and cheers from protestors in the audience. Oren tried to continue, only to be interrupted every few minutes by other protestors and more cheering and boos. He was interrupted 10 times. Eventually campus police began escorting individual protestors out of the room. The students defended their actions in this way: “These students had the courage and conscience to stand up against aggression using peaceful means. We cannot allow our educational institutions to be used as a platform to threaten and discourage students who choose to practice their First Amendment right.” In terms of Mill’s philosophy: 1. Can the students properly defend their interrupting the speaker by an appeal to their rights of free expression? If so, why? If not, why not? 2. Were the university police right to remove those who interrupted the speaker? What do you think: were the students simply exercising their right to freedom of speech? B. In 1979 the Nazi Party in Skokie, Illinois, applied for and received a permit to march (a parade) through the town, including through Jewish neighborhoods. Many Jews (and others) were outraged that the town granted a permit to a group that identified itself with the perpetrators of the Holocaust and tried to get the town to deny the permit. The American Civil Liberties Union defended the Nazis on the grounds of freedom of expression, and won. The Nazis marched, amid protests, of course. From Mill’s point of view, was the town right to grant the permit on grounds of freedom of expression, and right to reject the arguments of Jews and others that advocates of such an evil ideology should not be permitted to march? If you think that Mill’s philosophy implies that the town was right, be sure to explain what Mill’s philosophy says about how to deal with speech that you object to (however offensive and outrageous you think the speech is). If you believe that the Nazi ideology – that the Aryan race is supreme, that all other races are inferior and that Jews in particular should be exterminated – is false and evil, do you think that Nazis should be granted permits to march in public as an expression of their freedom of speech? How do you think it is best to deal with speech that some (or even most people) consider offensive or outrageous?