Christianity in the Debate of Women's Rights in the Early Nineteenth Century by Tyler Wood

After women got involved in politics by petitioning Indian removal they realized they could, and should, get involved in politics. The ‘separate spheres’ of sexes idea was in place at the time, which meant women should stay out of the public life. The next movement saw a more active role for women, like Angelina and Sarah Grimke, speaking out against slavery. In the process of this movement they realized their rights to speak were under attack and began fighting for equal rights for women based on their interpretation of scripture. Christianity takes center stage in the debate, existing as the field of battle amongst the three sides; pro-women’s rights/ pro-abolition, pro-abolition / anti-women’s rights (at least until slavery is taken care of), and anti-both.  This paper will discuss the role of Christianity in the debate of women’s rights - pro, con, and in between - and how it plays into the relation between the abolitionist movement, the Grimke sisters, and the women’s movement.

Read More

Equality: What Equality Should An Egalitarian Care About? by Tyler Wood

An egalitarian is one who wants equality for all people in a society, but what equality should we care about? We care about equality because we want everyone to live a good life no matter what issues they may have. The main arguments I will discuss are the theory of Equality of Welfare, the Equality of Resources, Dworkin's Equality of fortune, and Anderson's Democratic Equality, then I will propose a possible solution to the issues with these theories with my own theory, the Equality of Self-Sustainability. My theory will be a hybrid theory of the others but it will treat people as ends not means in the Kantian view. My theory will be more pragmatic and realistic, and won't cost as much in the end, for true justice and equality.

Read More

Nozick, Political Justice, and the Democratic Protection Association by Tyler Wood

Robert Nozick conceives of a "Dominant Protection Association" (DPA) model that would arise from the Lockean state of nature through an "invisible hand" model, meaning not designed but organic. He claims that this "invisible hand" model would violate no ones rights because no one would be in charge of it (like natural disasters aren't violating rights). This would be a natural progression from nature in the attempt to gather into society for protection, but is this protection agency enough or do we need more? Nozick agrees with more, he wants to get to the minimal state which has a monopoly on the use of force. I think a different approach is the model that would work the best - the model of the naturally constructed democratic DPA which Nozick doesn't offer.

Read More