(Great English is a must!! No grammar errors!) (Paper with grammar errors or incoherent sentences won’t be accepted) (NO external materials) (800 words each prompt,2 prompts, Double Spaced,Apa Format) -------------------------------- Subject of the paper: Write on TWO essays for the following prompt.. Each essay should be 800 – 1200 words. You are expected to engage very directly with the texts, quoting and citing the material (not just lecture notes!). Requirement: In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill advances a forceful case for a wide range of civil liberties, including nearly unrestricted freedom of speech. Present the central arguments for Mill’s position, then consider the ways in which Langton/Waldron challenge Mill’s view, focusing specifically on hate speech. Ultimately, do you think that certain forms of hate speech should be politically regulated? If so, why, and how do you draw the line? If not, how do you justify your position in light of the apparent harms produced by hate speech? In her review article on hate speech, Rae Langton claims that autonomy—or the capacity to control one’s own life—has a relational dimension: “what options are visible to you, and what autonomous choices are available to you, will depend on the conceptual resources and self-understandings available to you, all of which can be constrained by hate speech itself. Our autonomy is constrained by the social meaning of the options we have, which in turn is given in part by the speech of those around us.” Explore in some detail how Young’s analysis of feminine embodiment and the analysis of blindness (e.g., the case of Daniel Kish) in the Invisibilia podcast relate to this notion of “relational autonomy.” To what extent do you think that publicly accessible labels, stereotypes, and expectations constrain people’s identities and affect their capacities? What, if anything, can be done about it? Send as a single documentInclude the word count of each essay. No title pageTimes 12 pt font or equivalent. May be single—spaced1 – 1.25 inch marginsParenthetical citations are sufficient, unless you are using other editions or external materials Basic Requirements: References to be used: The two articles + the podcast (ALL THREE NEED TO BE USED) https://podcasts.apple.com/fj/podcast/how-to-becom... Other information: No plagiarism, No grammar errors Format: APA FormatNo plagiarism is acceptedOnly academic resources should be used, no older than 5 years oldAdhere to the requested number of words/pagesNo Grammar errors ( refunds will be asked for incoherent/ full of grammar errors papers) *** The work will be checked for plagiarism through Turnitin by the professor. It is essential for everything to be free of plagiarism otherwise sanctions will be imposed*** -------- Thank you for your support

Reading carefully and responding clearly in writing are skills you will use every day whether working on school assignments, applying for a job, or even keeping in touch with friends. In this lesson, demonstrate your critical writing skills by responding to the prompt

How would contractarians (contractualists) morally justify the civil disobedience against laws that allow racial discrimination or social inequality? [100-150 words] Landau, pp. 192-217 [The Theory of Social Contract] Part II Reply to the bellow students response to the sam question by addressing a point, problem or offering an alternate perspective. Your reply should be 100 - 150 words in length. "The term contractualist refers to either a family of political theories in the social contract tradition, or to the ethical theory developed in recent years. Contractarians morally justify the civil disobedience against laws that allow racial discrimination or social inequality because the main goal is to promote good-natured social relations. According to Scanlon, what we owe to eachother, or what we could loosely call "the morality of right and wrong", is distinct from this broader conception of morality in that contractualism provides a unified account of its content. When the laws mirror the rules liberated and equal people accept, they are morally justified. Everyone else that gets the short end of the stick sacrifice themselves for the sake of others and the social contract theory explains why that is not fair. The main point of morality is to create a mutual benefit in terms of fairness." REQUIRED READING  The Fundamentals of Ethics, Russ Shafer-Landau, Oxford University Press. ISBN# 978-0-19-999723-7 Landau, pp. 192-217 [The Theory of Social Contract]