There are two parts of this question first part is answering this and giving at least between 5-6 paragraphs on it. Can liberalism provide an adequate normative and social theory of global justice? Or do claims of national, cultural, and other forms of group meaning and solidarity necessarily threaten liberal models of individualism and autonomy? Discuss with reference to the works of Amin, Miller, and Mearsheimer.
The Second Part is this quote section part where I choose 5/10 quotes and you must answer the following from the quotes.
1) First quote this one is from David Millers Book titled National Responsibility and Global Justice on page 81. “…global justice…has to strike the right balance between two aspects of the human condition: between regarding people as needy and vulnerable creatures who may not be able to live decently without the help of others, and regarding them as responsible agents who should be allowed to enjoy the benefits, but also to bear the costs, of their choices and their actions”
2) Second quote is from The Great Delusion by John J. Mearsheimer on page 5 chapter 4: “Two of political liberalism’s most salient features are also its two significant flaws: the prominence it accords individualism, and the weight it places on inalienable rights”
3) Third quote is from Just and Unjust wars book by Michael Walzer on page 51 the start of part two on the chapter that is titled Law and order in International Society. “Aggression is remarkable because it is the only crime that states can commit against other states: everything else is, as it were, a misdemeanor.”
4) Fouth quote is from Eurocentrism by Samir Amin, on page 259 beginning of chapter 6 “Capitalism in popular opinion, and we will see the same thing in scholarly analyses, is the North America and Western Europe of the television series Dallas, the welfare state, and democracy. The millions of abandoned children in Brazil, famine in the Sahel, the bloody dictatorships of Africa, slavery in the mines of South America, and the exhaustion of young girls on the assembly lines of the electronics factories in Korea and elsewhere, all of that is not truly capitalism, but only the vestiges of the previous society.”
5) Fifth quote is from Just and Unjust wars by Michael Walzer on page 16 right at the beginning of Historical Relativism. “Hobbist relativism is often given a social or historical form: moral and strategic knowledge, it is said, changes over time or varies among political communities, and so what appears to me as ignorance may look like understanding to someone else. Now, change and variation are certainly real enough, and they make for a tale that is complex in the telling. But the importance of that tale for ordinary moral life and, above all, for the judgment of moral conduct is easily exaggerated. Between radically separate and dissimilar cultures, one can expect to find radical dichotomies in perception and understanding. No doubt the moral reality of war is not the same for us as it was for Genghis Khan; nor is the strategic reality.”
