Schedule of Events

There's a lot of talk about whether eating meat is morally acceptable today. Many people, like myself, have always ate meat and have never truly considered where the meat came from or if we should even be eating it. After a semester of research and working through these arguments against eating meat there were some holes that I found. I will be breaking down those arguments for others out there like myself or those who already have some knowledge about this problem. My goal is to get more people who eat meat to be conscious about this issue. 
 

My paper explores the intersections of Western politics, specifically in the United States, and its influence on constituents and potential voters who come from an eastern background. I use the history and development of immigration policies in the United States as a backdrop for an affective explanation of current voting trends of east and southeast Asian-Americans. This paper displays personal interest and investment, as the 2016 Presidential election reflected a 49% voting rate from those who identified themselves as Asian. My interest in democratic politics and its intersection with social justice justified this particular research project, as that 49% rate is only paralleled by a similarly low 47% rate from Latinx-Americans. To begin this paper, I extracted evidence from sets of academic journals that identify the history that shaped the American ethos toward Asian American politics. And in order to complete it, I synthesized and used that knowledge as a frame for my potential explanation of Asian engagement in western politics.

Political obligation refers to the moral responsibility one has to the state ( i.e. one’s  respective federal government).  Now, the question is this; do we have an obligation to this legitimate government? If so, under what conditions does this apply? Must we always uphold this obligation if the condition met at least once?  Many political theorists believe and argue that we have a political obligation to the state. However, some have argued that this type of obligation does not exist; these people are known as philosophical anarchist. One notable philosophical anarchist is A. John Simmons. Simmons believes many monistic principles that have been used to ground political obligation, such as consent, fair play, natural duty, and gratitude, fall short in qualifying for the conditions in which political obligation can be morally justified. Others, like George Klosko, have also denied a monist account, however, Klosko believes that combining multiple principles (pluralism) will be enough justify political obligation. Based on my philosophical research, I have concluded that, the idea that a monistic theory such as consent (tacit), fair play, natural duties, or gratitude is never by itself enough to generate political obligation; on the other hand, I have discovered that a more pluralistic account, will prove to be more plausible in grounding political obligation.