Which access specifier allows visibility only within the sam…
Questions
Which аccess specifier аllоws visibility оnly within the sаme package?
Write а shоrt but well-plаnned essаy respоnse tо one of the following questions. You have the full final exam period, so I suggest you spend 20-30 minutes planning and outlining, about 60 minutes writing, and 20-30 minutes editing and proofreading. Before you begin writing, form a specific argument (thesis) in response to the prompt you choose and determine how you will support your thesis using quotations, paraphrases, and references to arguments from the works we have read. Your response must incorporate and analyze at least four quotations of any length from the supplemental readings from the second half of the semester (available in hard copy or on Canvas) and/or from among those provided on the following pages. Use these quotes to demonstrate your understanding of the theorists’ ideas and to advance your argument. Note: If using the quotes provided, you may shorten and use only part of them, and no citation is required. If using a quote from one of the supplemental readings, include the page number where the original quote can be found. Please indicate at the top of your response which prompt you are replying to. You are encouraged to give your paper a title, but it is not required. What does it mean to be free? Analyze the competing conceptions of freedom offered by John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, considering how Mill’s harm principle relates to his understanding of liberty, and how Marx’s idea of “human emancipation” goes beyond political rights. Which conception of freedom is more persuasive or desirable, and why? Both A Theory of Justice and The Communist Manifesto address the problem of social and economic inequality, but Rawls and Marx & Engels propose very different ways to think about and respond to this problem. Examine how each work envisions a just society and how Marx & Engels might respond to Rawls, and vice versa. Whose argument is more persuasive, and why? Peter Singer advocates a utilitarian-based conception of the cosmopolitan obligations we all have toward other people, while Edmund Burke emphasizes the importance of “love of country,” as part of what might be called traditionalist nationalism. Explain what each thinker believes about the scope of our moral and political responsibilities to others. How does each justify their view? Do you find one more persuasive than the other? Why or why not? Both Edmund Burke and Simone de Beauvoir address the role of tradition in shaping social norms, ideas, and institutions. How do their views regarding inherited roles and established norms differ, particularly with respect to gender? How do their views on tradition relate to their arguments about the nature and importance of liberty? Which view is more persuasive, and why? Tips and Reminders: Make sure your thesis statement responding to the prompt is clearly formulated and stated and is sufficiently specific and precise. Answer how or why in your thesis statement. In addition to quotations, you can use logical reasoning and current or historical examples as evidence to support your claims. Don’t forget to raise and respond to potential counterarguments. Think about how someone might take the opposite view and try to respond to that claim. Writing quality matters. Proofread; check spelling, grammar and syntax carefully. The most important thing is to write as clearly as possible. Do not try to sound academic or fancy. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) “[The question is about] the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” “All that makes existence valuable to any one depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people.” “The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.” “Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved through free and equal discussion.” “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” “Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.” “The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others … is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognizant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers—knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter—he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process.” “There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.” “However true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.” “An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.” “I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of a man as a progressive being.” “The free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being.” “Considerations to aid [another’s] judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others: but he himself is the final judge. All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good.” “As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so it is that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically … [This is] quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.” Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848) “Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is. … No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wage in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.” “All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.” “The modern laborer …, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society. … The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. … What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” “The average price of wage-labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence, which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage-laborer appropriates by means of his labor, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life. ... All that we want to do away with, is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.” “In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. … And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying…. You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.” “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.” “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. ... National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world-market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding hereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. … In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.” “When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat … by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971) “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.” “Certain principles of justice are justified because they would be agreed to in an initial situation of equality.” “The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.” “1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged … and (b) Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”