Philosophy critical eassy

Critically assess the Immoralist's Challenge (Thrasymachus & Glaucon). Do you agree that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger? Why or why not?

Why, according to Plato, ought philosopher-kings rule in the ideal state? Do you agree with his analysis? Why or why not?

Is Hobbes’s defense of absolute sovereignty ultimately a defense of tyranny? If revolution/revolt is the only way to check an absolute sovereign, do you think that Hobbes’s account of the commonwealth by social contract is a recipe for peaceful, stable political society? Why or why not? Fully explain your reasoning.

How does Rousseau understand the relationship between liberty and equality? What does he mean when he talks about equality? Finally, do you agree with his account of the origins of inequality and strategy for remedying it? Why or why not?

David Hume rejects the validity of tacit consent as a basis for political obligation. Explain his reasoning. Do you agree? Why or why not? Be sure to consider objections, or reasons why tacit consent might generate political obligations.

C.W. Mills claims that most white political philosophers have worked with a consensual model which ignores or denies the history of racism and slavery. Assess his claim. Do you think that his claim, if true, undermines/invalidates traditional contract theories (e.g., Hobbes, Rousseau), at the fundamental level? Why or why not?