Paper , Order, or Assignment Requirements

Tony Judt did not live to see Brexit nor Trump nor the Glenfell Tower fire or the mowing down of ordinary people in London and Nice. He did not see the literal waves of immigrants attempting to land on supposedly friendlier shores. He died before witnessing
the so-called economic recovery in the US, the assailing of missiles by North Korea or the alleged involvement of Russia in US politics. Yet, he was especially prescient about the increasing fragmentation of society and loss of a focus on the, or even, a common good.

His opening salvo is: ‘something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today”. His underlying premise is that without a common interest, goal or purpose, society has lost its ethical core.

The assignment for the Ill Fares the Land is to submit a scholarly paper of no more than 10 pages, double-spaced, in Times New Roman, 12 pt., one-inch margins all around, and intertextual and reference citations in APA format.

The paper must have a cover page, title, and abstract. In addition to the Judt book, please include at least ten other references from peer-reviewed and valid sources (i.e. New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Economist, National Review, etc..

The guidelines for the paper, in addition to the format, are:

1. Take a stand on whether you agree or disagree with Judt that society no longer has a common interest and therefore has lost its ethical core. Be specific on what you agree or do not agree with. You may want to clarify your definition of ethical core.

2. Narrow that agreement or disagreement to concrete examples from your work, from your research, and from the readings in this course or others to support your position and that clearly indicate command of Judt’s book. This is the heart of the paper. (If applicable,
analyze the book in connection with your thesis research — CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.)

A note on grading: There clearly is no right or wrong answer. Several book reviews of Ill Fares the Land are divided on whether there is deep substance to this work or whether it is simply a polemic by a dying man.
There is, however, an agreement that the book stimulates thought. It is critical thinking and as it is critical thinking that is the essence of these two questions asked in the syllabus:
1) What should governments do, considering principles that guide good, just, legitimate public policy?
(2) What should political actors do, considering the many and often competing obligations that guide political actors in contesting what is good, just, and legitimate public policy?

find the cost of your paper
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.