Philosophy 2.0

Please Follow the instructions.
Below are sample essays, you should use for guidance when doing the assigment. The name of the textbook is Traversing philosophical boundaries. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage
Question:
Using the assigned Lesson 11 philosophical readings, describe your ideal society in a minimum of 300 words. What would it look like based on your understanding of human nature? What form would the government take? What kind of laws would you establish? What is the power of law to mold and shape human beings?
At the end of your essay, describe which of the theorists/theories from the Lesson 11 readings with which your views most closely align. Explain why. Define any philosophical terms you use in your response.
The theorist you can choose from are: Henry David Thoreau , Martin Luther King, Jr. , Mohandas K. Gandhi
Sample Essay:
Essay 1:
My utopian society would be one of equal opportunity and well-defined moral codes that do not infringe on an individual's freedom. There would be structure, because I believe human nature necessitates having some form of constitution to be guided with but not to the extent of most modern democracies. Individuals are to act by their own conscious and moral compass, with the loose government structure that prohibits most of the extremes of human harm i.e. murder and rape. Petty crimes would be treated with community service or rehabilitation programs, instead of jail sentences. The law would be in place to discourage destructive behavior and correct bad habits that without intervention may lead to more extreme crimes later. Those in accordance with the few laws would live lives of minimal government intervention and enjoy their individual freedom as long as they don't infringe on others freedom. The power of law to mold and shape human beings would be small, it would permit more opportunity for personal discovery and growth as long as long as one stays within the minimalist framework of the government.
In this society, there would be no box to mark your race or ethnicity on for example an application because we are all regarded as equivalent to one another. The color of one's skin would no longer define them and would not affect how individuals associate, for I cannot understand why there was the division in the first place as we are all human. There would also be no distinction between patriarchal or matriarchal, as men and woman would also be regarded as equal.
I pulled many of my ideas on an ideal society from Henry David Thoreau's excerpt and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. I agree with Thoreau that there is a possibility of democracy not being “the last improvement possible in government". I believe we have the capacity to keep evolving, for the system of democracy we have in place works most of the time but like most things can always be improved upon. I aligned most of the structure of my ideal society on Mill's concept of a boundary established between government intrusion and individual freedom, for I believe there should be a limit to the law encroaching on individual lives and their potential to flourish on their own.
===================================================================================
Essay 2
While at first glance human nature may appear irrelevant to the foundations of a society, it proves to be a defining factor. If humans are seen as inherently good, one can theoretically place more trust in them to behave in accordance with common social and moral conventions. Ideologically, this would equate to, “Humans are inherently good, thus most people are good, meaning most people will do good.” The focus in this society would be to restrain or eliminate the corruptive forces that taint this innate goodness. However, my belief is that human beings are not inherently good, but inherently bad, with our inherent goodness being something only spirituality can restore. Thus, while on earth societies must note humans’ capabilities and inclinations for “bad,” or actions that go against common social and moral conventions.
The responsibility for keeping the bad actions in check would fall to a government. In a world where all human beings are drawn toward “bad,” this power must be spread out to multiple parties. A system akin to the American republic’s three branches would be a hopeful measure. The additional levels of federal, state, and local governments would also assist in spreading out power and ensuring that more voices are heard. This last aspect is important, as the government must be mediating based off some notion. For this ideal government, this notion would be that all human beings possess inherent rights that cannot be taken away by other human beings. Thus, this government would seek to protect these rights. This does not mean the government will stringently police the populace, but ideally it would interfere only when a clash or violation of rights has happened or is foreseeable. Briefly mentioned before, the government would also be democratic, or in the populace’s interests. This is due to the inherent equality of all human beings; they all have a right to be heard and seek ideal conditions for their rights.
Related to the government would be actions to ensure this equality and the freedom of its people. The latter aspect is important for equality, as if not all are treated equally, there is a disparity in rights. All people have the same rights, and they are all humans, so they should experience equal treatment by the law. Equality may look fuzzy once the law is enforced on those who infringe on the rights of others. Laws are set to protect everyone’s inherent rights. When one infringes on another’s rights, they still possess their own. While still treating them as people, the government must deal with these incidents by using force only when necessary. Negative reinforcement may be necessary, but finding the origin for why some are infringing on others’ rights may prove fruitful as well and allow all humans to maintain their dignity and equal treatment, rather than debasing some.
This aforementioned society is indeed ideal and would certainly encounter dysfunction. Those enforcing the law are not perfect themselves, so incidents could even occur concerning protection and enforcement. While the law would protect the inherent rights of all, other legal measures stemming from deemed rights or moral judgments may result in majority rule. Despite this, due to all humans being equal, the minority will still have its rights protected.
My imaginary society aligns strongly with the views of John Stuart Mill, who expressed the desire for a limited government in his work “On Liberty.” Mill mentioned that the government should interfere when one’s actions could harm another, but he did not note what the government’s response should be (Mill, 1859). To this approach, I align with ideals of nonviolence like Mohandas K. Gandhi propagated (The Gandhi Sutras). Though realistically not all are spiritual, having a form of peaceful self-reflection may assist in restricting the “bad,” also leading to less governmental response which would further allow exercise of one’s liberty.

-
Rating:
5/
Solution: paper needed