Freedom and Justice Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Freedom and Justice - Essay Example How affordable is higher education for Americans? What sorts of conflicts has higher education produced? These questions and many more will be addressed and applied to a holistic analysis of higher education in the United States. Conflict theory evolved from Marxism and focuses on what it perceives are inherent conflicts within society. Marxists perceive conflict to be endemic when resources are scarce and argue that our social system – capitalism – is the most unequal system when it comes to resource allocation and distribution. Private property, capital and social classes are all important characteristics of an inegalitarian society. An unequal division of labour and class exploitation is said to lead to conflict according to this theory (Wallerstein, 1974). A Conflict Theorist would immediately point out the inequalities surrounding higher education in the United States and would argue that higher education promotes class difference and exploitation of the masses. Seeing higher education as a tool for upward social mobility, Conflict Theorists would assert that the lack of accessibility of higher education in the United States maintains the unequal status between social classes, ensuring tha t the wealthy remain wealthy and the poor in America remain poor. Conflict Theorists point out that exorbitant costs to attend colleges and universities ensure that only the wealthy can access higher education and thus reaps the benefit of having a Bachelors Degree, Masters Degree or PhD. Affordability, or lack thereof, essentially promotes the existing class structure to the detriment of the greater society. The implication is a society stratified by class and educational attainment. Those without access to the elite ivory towers of America’s universities and colleges will forever remain in the bottom rung of society. Conflict will exist between those who have the means to attend university and those who do

Political Science Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Political Science Paper - Essay Example They all came up with different views concerning political authority. Hobbes supported complete monarchy; Locke supported natural rights and Rousseau spoke of joint self-government in the name of "the general will" (Cohen and Fermon, p 281). This paper will discuss the social contract of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Burke; giving a clear understanding of human nature as viewed by the four philosophers and explaining whether the philosophers think that the congress is a â€Å"broken branch†. Question 1: A social contract of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Burke Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes wrote that, in the absence of political law and order, human life would result to be; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short lived (Cohen and Fermon, p 205). This would give all individuals fundamentally the right to everything, and thus the freedom to murder, sexual assault and theft. Thomas Hobbes came up with the social contract whereby individuals came together and surrendered some of their individual rights so that others would relinquish theirs. It meant that an individual Y would give up on their right to kill for another individual Z to live. This resulted in the setting up of a state, an independent body which would create laws to control social interactions. Hobbes preferred a monarchy system. This meant that human life was thus no longer a warfare but peace towards all (Cohen and Fermon, p 206). John Locke John Locke's idea of the social contract was different from Hobbes' in several deep ways. It retained only the central notion that individuals within a state of nature would come together to form a state (Cohen and Fermon, p 243). Locke wrote that integrity linked people together in a state of nature, by The Law of Nature. They could not bring harm to one another in their lives or belongings. He stated that without the government to protect them against those looking to wound or enchain them; individuals would not be secured in their rights and freedoms. They would survive in panic. Locke quarreled that individuals would be in agreement to create a state that provided room for a government which would protect their lives, independence, and possessions of those who existed within it (Cohen and Fermon, p 244). Jean-Jacques Rousseau Rousseau's political theory differs in vital ways from that of Hobbes’ and Locke’s. Rousseau's theory of socialism stands out in his development of the "luminous conception† of the â€Å"general will† (Cohen and Fermon, p 2). In his easy of the social contract, he said that it was the foundation of political rights based upon unlimited popular dominion. Rousseau argued that liberty would only be achieved where there was direct rule by the citizens as a whole in lawmaking. This was because of the popularity of sovereignty being inseparable and absolute. Rousseau also maintained that the individuals were not familiar with their "real will," plus that an accurate society would not be bor n until a prominent leader arose to create new standards and ways of the individuals, he thought that this would be best achieved if a planned use of religion would be introduced. He termed the consummate leader as â€Å"the Legislator† (Cohen and Fermon, p 280). Edmund Burke Burke unlike Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau; spoke against democracy. He thought though it would be desired by many individuals in most regions, in his country Britain; he stated that it would be incept