The democratic peace theory, which originates from Kant’s theory of ‘Perpetual Peace’, states tha... more The democratic peace theory, which originates from Kant’s theory of ‘Perpetual Peace’, states that democracies do not go to war with each other. However, it differs from Kant’s theory in the fact that the democratic peace theory sets forth the notion that democracies don’t go to war with other democracies but do go to war with states which have other forms of government (Layne 8). There are several reasons as to why this is considered a robust theory, including institutional constraints, democratic norms and cultures, implementation of one of the key postulates of liberal states, the satisfaction of liberal states with absolute gains and their economic interdependence as well as conditions of empire, hegemony and equilibrium. Perhaps the most powerful reason to believe the theory is it’s justification by empirical data and statistics. However, in this essay, I will state my reasons for disagreeing with the democratic peace theory, some of which are the vague definition of a democracy, the small sample size of empirical data, rise of democracies in a period conflict, the distinction between correlation and causation along with case studies which show that the reason two states don’t go to war may have nothing to do with the fact that they are democracies. Finally, I conclude the paper by putting forth a theory as to why democratic superpowers would back the DPT and prosper from it.
The Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu puts forth an idealistic view of the world in his Viṃśatikākā... more The Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu puts forth an idealistic view of the world in his Viṃśatikākārikā and Viṃśatikāvṛtti. He presents his work on the Yogācāra form of metaphysical idealism after converting to Mahāyāna Buddhism in these texts. Idealism is the view that there exist only those entities which are mind-dependent, and the world is ‘impressions only’. This is in opposition to other realists who believe that mind-independent objects also exist. Vasubandhu aims to show that idealism is the preferred theory because with equal explanatory power, it surpasses realism by being the simpler theory. However, in this paper I attempt to show that it is not clear that idealism has equal explanatory power as realism and hence it is not necessarily the more probable theory. I will raise a few objections to Vasubandhu’s idealism, specifically the first half of his twenty verses.
In the eighth chapter of Bodhicaryāvatāra(BCA), the author Śāntideva puts forth the idea that the... more In the eighth chapter of Bodhicaryāvatāra(BCA), the author Śāntideva puts forth the idea that the Buddhist idea of anātman implies altruism. In short, he argues that it is only rational for one to alleviate all suffering equally, be it one’s own or that of others. In this paper, I examine the passages 90-103 of chapter eight of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, and flesh out the argument made by Śāntideva by explicating the premises. Then, I form an objection to certain premises and point out inconsistencies which could render these premises false. By definition of soundness, an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true. Hence, by showing flaws in certain premises, I show why the argument unsound. I go on to answer possible objections to my criticisms and end the paper by proving definitively why I don’t think that anātman entails altruism.
There is no single conception of liberalism in today’s world, neither has there ever been. From M... more There is no single conception of liberalism in today’s world, neither has there ever been. From Mills’ and Locke’s minimal government involvement conception of liberty to Berlin’s and Taylor’s distinction between negative and positive liberty, to Kymlicka’s liberal multicultural hypothesis to Okin’s redressal of liberal ideas of multiculturalism and their clash with feminist values, there have been a wide array of definitions for liberalism. In this paper, I will argue for the greatest challenge of liberalism being the tensions within it, especially tensions between individual choice and liberal justice. I will first flesh out the different conceptions of liberty and explicate possible points of contradiction within them. Then, having established a tension within liberalism, I will use this hypothesis and apply it on 3 different kinds of cases in details. These cases would be 1) The imposition of democracy, 2) The ban of the burqa in France, and 3) The legitimacy of the ‘choice’ to discriminate. Finally, I will conclude the paper by attempting to minimise these tensions within liberalism and formulate a more consistent version of it.
How far is too far? The current sphere of animal ethics consists of two main theories; utilitaria... more How far is too far? The current sphere of animal ethics consists of two main theories; utilitarianism, as advocated by Peter Singer, and the animal rights (or deontological) view, as put forth by Tom Regan. I believe that both these views have their shortcomings because they lack the tools to make them context specific and thus seem very extreme and unreasonable. In this paper, I reject the bases of both Singer and Regan’s view and show that it is impossible to maintain moral consistency when strictly following either of them. I then argue for a middle ground between the two views with practical elements from Singer and Regan, which could provide us with a normative theory on what action to take with regards to issues such as consumption of meat and animal testing.
As time has progressed, the nature of a state has transformed from what was essentially a monarch... more As time has progressed, the nature of a state has transformed from what was essentially a monarchy (the rule of a singular person) to that of contemporary democracies in most cases all over the world. In this paper, I will attempt to show that contrary to popular belief, an elective monarchy is the preferred form of governance in a state, as opposed to the more popular forms such as democracy and oligarchy. Here, an elective monarchy is one in which the ruler would be elected by the people as opposed to it being a hereditary system. I start by outlining the role of the government to establish which form is preferable, then highlight the shortcomings of democracy and oligarchy and show how a monarchy would tackle those shortcomings, and finally respond to possible objections to my thesis. To defend my thesis, I will be deploying arguments and objections from Herodotus’ Histories.
International Law falls into a unique tension which characterizes it; broadly speaking, it is a s... more International Law falls into a unique tension which characterizes it; broadly speaking, it is a set of rules created by states to which these states themselves are bound. As Bodansky says, “international law lacks a legislature to make the law, a judiciary to interpret and apply the law and an executive to enforce the law.” (Bodansky 136). This definition of international law makes it seem unimportant and impractical; however, nations do by and large obey the law even though it is seldom enforced. There are several perspectives on why nations obey international law, varying with the theory one subscribes to in international relations. A few general reasons that come to mind are maintenance of international peace and tackling international issues such as terrorism and transboundary harms,having a uniform set of rules in a transnational globalized society and maintaining a symbolic position of faithful observance. A realist would claim that states conform to international law when it serves their interest; I argue that this is not always the case. National Interest plays an important role in state behavior in accordance with international law, but there is an ethical basis to the compliance of states with international law which goes beyond just promoting self interest. In this paper, I talk about how national interest along with a moral framework explains the compliance of nations to international law. I also examine how ethics plays into laws related to human rights and the environment, analyse the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, and tackle the question of why some nations fail to obey the law.
When it comes to political conflict, the question of whether to go to war or not is debated widel... more When it comes to political conflict, the question of whether to go to war or not is debated widely in different ideologies. While realists claim that the advancement of a nation’s self interest can always justify war, pacifists are on the other end of the spectrum as they believe that it can never be morally permissible to go to war (McMahan 386). The Just War theory put forward by policymakers seem to take a middle ground between this extreme positions and lays down certain rules which a war must satisfy in order to be considered a ‘just war’ (Johnson 2017). This encompasses guidelines on the permissible reasons to go to war and permissible conduct to be maintained during war. In this paper, I will go over the conditions of the just war theory and consider the question of whether a war can ever be just. Then, I attempt to examine the conditions to be met during a war, such as proportionality, discrimination and use of nuclear weapons. Lastly, I propose certain changed which could increase the effectiveness of the Just War Theory.
You know that one person in class who always says things against the status quo? Who has no opin... more You know that one person in class who always says things against the status quo? Who has no opinions of their own, but just in relation to and against the opinions of others? Well, that person within Buddhism is Nagarjuna, a Madhyamika Buddhist philosopher who seems to hold a contrarian view within the field regarding svabhava, or intrinsic nature. In my thesis presentation, I tackle the question of whether Nagarjuna indulges in defining terms to his advantage and playing games in order to reach his position, or whether he does so through legitimate argumentation, or, even if the two are mutually exclusive. I also try to make sense of how his views of svabhava fit in with the general Buddhist doctrine of momentariness, and whether a completely negative (one that negates rather than asserts) view can actually teach us something.
The democratic peace theory, which originates from Kant’s theory of ‘Perpetual Peace’, states tha... more The democratic peace theory, which originates from Kant’s theory of ‘Perpetual Peace’, states that democracies do not go to war with each other. However, it differs from Kant’s theory in the fact that the democratic peace theory sets forth the notion that democracies don’t go to war with other democracies but do go to war with states which have other forms of government (Layne 8). There are several reasons as to why this is considered a robust theory, including institutional constraints, democratic norms and cultures, implementation of one of the key postulates of liberal states, the satisfaction of liberal states with absolute gains and their economic interdependence as well as conditions of empire, hegemony and equilibrium. Perhaps the most powerful reason to believe the theory is it’s justification by empirical data and statistics. However, in this essay, I will state my reasons for disagreeing with the democratic peace theory, some of which are the vague definition of a democracy, the small sample size of empirical data, rise of democracies in a period conflict, the distinction between correlation and causation along with case studies which show that the reason two states don’t go to war may have nothing to do with the fact that they are democracies. Finally, I conclude the paper by putting forth a theory as to why democratic superpowers would back the DPT and prosper from it.
The Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu puts forth an idealistic view of the world in his Viṃśatikākā... more The Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu puts forth an idealistic view of the world in his Viṃśatikākārikā and Viṃśatikāvṛtti. He presents his work on the Yogācāra form of metaphysical idealism after converting to Mahāyāna Buddhism in these texts. Idealism is the view that there exist only those entities which are mind-dependent, and the world is ‘impressions only’. This is in opposition to other realists who believe that mind-independent objects also exist. Vasubandhu aims to show that idealism is the preferred theory because with equal explanatory power, it surpasses realism by being the simpler theory. However, in this paper I attempt to show that it is not clear that idealism has equal explanatory power as realism and hence it is not necessarily the more probable theory. I will raise a few objections to Vasubandhu’s idealism, specifically the first half of his twenty verses.
In the eighth chapter of Bodhicaryāvatāra(BCA), the author Śāntideva puts forth the idea that the... more In the eighth chapter of Bodhicaryāvatāra(BCA), the author Śāntideva puts forth the idea that the Buddhist idea of anātman implies altruism. In short, he argues that it is only rational for one to alleviate all suffering equally, be it one’s own or that of others. In this paper, I examine the passages 90-103 of chapter eight of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, and flesh out the argument made by Śāntideva by explicating the premises. Then, I form an objection to certain premises and point out inconsistencies which could render these premises false. By definition of soundness, an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true. Hence, by showing flaws in certain premises, I show why the argument unsound. I go on to answer possible objections to my criticisms and end the paper by proving definitively why I don’t think that anātman entails altruism.
There is no single conception of liberalism in today’s world, neither has there ever been. From M... more There is no single conception of liberalism in today’s world, neither has there ever been. From Mills’ and Locke’s minimal government involvement conception of liberty to Berlin’s and Taylor’s distinction between negative and positive liberty, to Kymlicka’s liberal multicultural hypothesis to Okin’s redressal of liberal ideas of multiculturalism and their clash with feminist values, there have been a wide array of definitions for liberalism. In this paper, I will argue for the greatest challenge of liberalism being the tensions within it, especially tensions between individual choice and liberal justice. I will first flesh out the different conceptions of liberty and explicate possible points of contradiction within them. Then, having established a tension within liberalism, I will use this hypothesis and apply it on 3 different kinds of cases in details. These cases would be 1) The imposition of democracy, 2) The ban of the burqa in France, and 3) The legitimacy of the ‘choice’ to discriminate. Finally, I will conclude the paper by attempting to minimise these tensions within liberalism and formulate a more consistent version of it.
How far is too far? The current sphere of animal ethics consists of two main theories; utilitaria... more How far is too far? The current sphere of animal ethics consists of two main theories; utilitarianism, as advocated by Peter Singer, and the animal rights (or deontological) view, as put forth by Tom Regan. I believe that both these views have their shortcomings because they lack the tools to make them context specific and thus seem very extreme and unreasonable. In this paper, I reject the bases of both Singer and Regan’s view and show that it is impossible to maintain moral consistency when strictly following either of them. I then argue for a middle ground between the two views with practical elements from Singer and Regan, which could provide us with a normative theory on what action to take with regards to issues such as consumption of meat and animal testing.
As time has progressed, the nature of a state has transformed from what was essentially a monarch... more As time has progressed, the nature of a state has transformed from what was essentially a monarchy (the rule of a singular person) to that of contemporary democracies in most cases all over the world. In this paper, I will attempt to show that contrary to popular belief, an elective monarchy is the preferred form of governance in a state, as opposed to the more popular forms such as democracy and oligarchy. Here, an elective monarchy is one in which the ruler would be elected by the people as opposed to it being a hereditary system. I start by outlining the role of the government to establish which form is preferable, then highlight the shortcomings of democracy and oligarchy and show how a monarchy would tackle those shortcomings, and finally respond to possible objections to my thesis. To defend my thesis, I will be deploying arguments and objections from Herodotus’ Histories.
International Law falls into a unique tension which characterizes it; broadly speaking, it is a s... more International Law falls into a unique tension which characterizes it; broadly speaking, it is a set of rules created by states to which these states themselves are bound. As Bodansky says, “international law lacks a legislature to make the law, a judiciary to interpret and apply the law and an executive to enforce the law.” (Bodansky 136). This definition of international law makes it seem unimportant and impractical; however, nations do by and large obey the law even though it is seldom enforced. There are several perspectives on why nations obey international law, varying with the theory one subscribes to in international relations. A few general reasons that come to mind are maintenance of international peace and tackling international issues such as terrorism and transboundary harms,having a uniform set of rules in a transnational globalized society and maintaining a symbolic position of faithful observance. A realist would claim that states conform to international law when it serves their interest; I argue that this is not always the case. National Interest plays an important role in state behavior in accordance with international law, but there is an ethical basis to the compliance of states with international law which goes beyond just promoting self interest. In this paper, I talk about how national interest along with a moral framework explains the compliance of nations to international law. I also examine how ethics plays into laws related to human rights and the environment, analyse the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, and tackle the question of why some nations fail to obey the law.
When it comes to political conflict, the question of whether to go to war or not is debated widel... more When it comes to political conflict, the question of whether to go to war or not is debated widely in different ideologies. While realists claim that the advancement of a nation’s self interest can always justify war, pacifists are on the other end of the spectrum as they believe that it can never be morally permissible to go to war (McMahan 386). The Just War theory put forward by policymakers seem to take a middle ground between this extreme positions and lays down certain rules which a war must satisfy in order to be considered a ‘just war’ (Johnson 2017). This encompasses guidelines on the permissible reasons to go to war and permissible conduct to be maintained during war. In this paper, I will go over the conditions of the just war theory and consider the question of whether a war can ever be just. Then, I attempt to examine the conditions to be met during a war, such as proportionality, discrimination and use of nuclear weapons. Lastly, I propose certain changed which could increase the effectiveness of the Just War Theory.
You know that one person in class who always says things against the status quo? Who has no opin... more You know that one person in class who always says things against the status quo? Who has no opinions of their own, but just in relation to and against the opinions of others? Well, that person within Buddhism is Nagarjuna, a Madhyamika Buddhist philosopher who seems to hold a contrarian view within the field regarding svabhava, or intrinsic nature. In my thesis presentation, I tackle the question of whether Nagarjuna indulges in defining terms to his advantage and playing games in order to reach his position, or whether he does so through legitimate argumentation, or, even if the two are mutually exclusive. I also try to make sense of how his views of svabhava fit in with the general Buddhist doctrine of momentariness, and whether a completely negative (one that negates rather than asserts) view can actually teach us something.
Uploads
Drafts by Devanshi Iyer