Page 1 of 2 Policy Project Proposal Focused Topic .docx

of 2
Policy Project Proposal
Focused Topic:
Topic Description (100-150 words):
Arguments For:
1.
2.
3.
Sources (1-2 full citations):
Arguments Against:
1.
2.
3.
Sources (1-2 full citations):

Party Positions:
Democratic Party Position:
Source:
Republican Party Position:
Source:
Page 2 of 2
Interest Group Positions:
Interest Group For:
Source:
Interest Group Against:
Source:
Public Opinion:
Public Opinion on Issue:

Percent of Public in Favor:
Source:
Percent of Public Against:
Source:
Focused Topic: Should there be a Constitutional amendment
banning abortion ?Topic Description 100150 words: There is
much controversy in society today regarding abortion. There is
a belief that the pregnant woman should be able to make her
own decison when it comes to having a child or not. Some in the
government feel as if there needs to be some kind of decison or
amendment regarding this. In my opinion, I feel like that
decision is not for the government to make. There should be an
amendment allowing this is every state. I hope to expand on the
views regarding those who believe in abortion and those who
don't. Democratic Party Position: Supports Roe V Wade
Republican Party Position: Against Roe v WadeInterest Group
For: Pro Life Action League Interest Group Against: NARAL
Pro Choice AmericaPublic Opinion on Issue: Public opinion
today is half and half on the topic of abortion. Percent of Public
in Favor: 38%Percent of Public Against: 61%First Argument
For: Has the belief that pregnancy starts when the egg is
fertilized Second Argument For: Defines human being as every
stage of life - beginning with conception Third Argument For:
Most commonly used second trimester abortion method is
dismemberment abortions Sources 1 to 2 full citations: First
Argument Against: women should be able to choose to abort or
not Second Argument Against: Fetuses cannot feel pain when
most abortions are performed Third Argument Against:
Abortion reduces welfare costs to taxpayers Sources 1 to 2 full
citations Against: Democratic Party Position Source:
https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_abortion.h
tmlRepublican Party Position Source:

https://www.economist.com/comment/3032481Source of
Interest Group For: https://prolifeaction.orgSource of Interest
Group Against: https://www.prochoiceamerica.org Source of
Public Opinion in Favor: https://www.pewforum.org/fact-
sheet/public-opinon-on-abortionSource of Public Opinion
Against: https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinon-
on-abortion
ENG101 Essay 1 Log: Analyzing and Responding to
“The Myth of Universal Love”
PART ONE: Use the outline below to break down (analyze)
Asma’s article into its parts. Find key quotations that sum up
the MAIN POINTS of that part of the article. Number the
paragraphs before you begin the log.
1. Introduction to the issue and thesis: Paragraph __ to __
What is the issue (the problem or debate) that is addressed in
this article?
Copy Asma’s thesis statement. This is his claim, the main point
that he will support in his argument.
2. Singer’s argument: Paragraph __ to __
Copy some quotations from this section that best state Singer’s
argument.

3. Asma’s response to Singer: Paragraph __ to __
Copy some quotations from this section that best state Asma’s
rebuttal.
4. Rifkin’s argument: Paragraph __ to __
Copy some quotations from this section that best state Rifkin’s
argument.

5. Asma’s response to Rifkin: Paragraph __ to __
rebuttal.
6. Asma’s final points: Paragraph __ to __
final points.

PART TWO: Now, write your response to the three thinkers
who express opinions in “The Myth of Universal Love.” Do you
agree or disagree with them? Why? Just write quickly what
comes to your mind. Refer to what you wrote in Part One to
review each thinker’s main points.
1. Your response to Singer’s position.
2. Your response to Rifkin’s position.
3. Your response to Asma’s position.

ENG101 Essay 1 Log: Part 2
You may type or write by hand. Before you fill in this log,
READ the articles again; then use your pencil to UNDERLINE
or use your highlighter pen to HIGHLIGHT sentences in the
articles.
Complete this log by the end of class on Wednesday, Feb. 12.
Write your ideas and TYPE QUOTATIONS
“In Defense of Technology” by Andrew O’Hagan
· ISSUE: this is the “conversation” (and controversy) the author
is responding to.
· THESIS. This is the main idea he supports in this article.
“In Defense of Technology”
Copy QUOTATIONS (+ page numbers) from this article that
from this article that help you explain O’Hagan’s argument in
this article. Focus on O’Hagan’s ideas SPECIFICALLY
RELATED to the focus of your essay: “universal love” in the
digital age.

“The Limits of Friendship” by Maria Konnikova
· ISSUE: this is the “conversation” (and controversy) the author
is responding to.
· THESIS: This is the main idea she supports in this article.
“The Limits of Friendship”
Copy QUOTATIONS (+ page numbers) from this article that
help you explain Maria Konnikova’s argument. Keep in mind
the focus of YOUR essay: “universal love” in the digital age.

2/2/20, 8'34 PMIn Defense of Technology - The New York
Times
Page 1 of 6https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/t-magazine/in-
defense-of-technology.html
https://nyti.ms/1WFFUbI
SIGN OF THE TIMES
By Andrew O’Hagan
Nov. 5, 2014
As products and services advance, plenty of nostalgists believe
that certain elements of
humanity have been lost. One contrarian argues that being
attached to one’s iPhone is a
godsend.
In Defense of Technology
https://www.nytimes.com/section/t-magazine

https://www.nytimes.com/column/sign-of-the-times
Times
The children don’t believe me when I tell them life used to be
hard. They think it’s a
routine out of Charles Dickens, a tale of filthy lodgings, stale
bread and no Internet, where
even the most resourceful among us struggled to survive in a
world without teeth-
bleaching or Kindle. My daughter rolls her eyes whenever I
begin my stories of woe.
“Here he goes,” she says. “Tell the one about how you used to
walk to school alone. And
"You Autocomplete Me ... or Are You Taking Over?" by
Kowalskivision
Times
the other one, about how you had to remember people’s phone

numbers! And: Watch this.
Dad, tell the one about how you used to swim outside, like in a
pond or something. With
frogs in it!”
“You know, darling. It wasn’t so long ago. And it wasn’t such a
hardship either. There was
actually something quite pleasant about, say, getting lost as you
walked in a city, without
immediately resorting to Google Maps.”
“As if!”
And so it goes. No contest. The infant experience of the easy
life can only ridicule the idea
that patience and effort used to be fine. But I’ve been trying to
examine the problem from
a new angle, and I keep coming back to the same truth: Life is
better. In some nostalgic,
carefree, totally invented Mississippi River of the mind, we
were always floating
downstream in a vessel of our own making, always happy to
have nothing, living high on
our wits and our basic decencies. But was it nice? Was life as
good as it is now? One is
almost programmed, if over the age of 35, to say no to this

question. One is supposed to
stare into the middle distance and recall the superior days of a
life less needy, the rich
rewards of having to wait and having to try and having to do
without. But the actual truth,
my friends, is that my childhood would have been greatly, no,
infinitely, improved, if only
I’d had a smartphone and a dog walker.
To believe in progress is not only to believe in the future: It is
also to usher in the
possibility that the past wasn’t all that. I now feel — and this is
a revelation — that my
past was an interesting and quite fallow period spent waiting for
the Internet. At home,
I’ll continue to cause a festival of eye-rolling with my notion
that some values were
preserved by the low-tech environment, but, more generally
speaking, life has just gotten
better and better. The question is: How far would you go with
that? My daughter’s
mother goes all the way. “I can sit in my holiday house in the
country,” she says, “and
order furniture, clothes, anything really, to come from London
and Paris. It’s killed

provincialism. It’s also killed human loneliness.”
“That’s shocking,” I say. “Luxury can’t kill loneliness.”
Times
“You want to bet?”
So, I’ve been on the back foot. I didn’t know it when I was
young, but maybe we were just
waiting for more stuff and ways to save time. Is that right?
Were we just waiting for
Twitter to come along and show us there were sexy and clever
people out there and funny
stuff happening all the time in places we’d barely even heard of
? I mean, how could I ever
pretend life was even half tolerable in the 1970s, when a slow
game of Pong or a fast
episode of “Mork & Mindy” felt like a glittering revelation of
things to come? My God: It
took punk, which was basically just a bunch of art students
jumping around wearing

safety pins, to wake us out of the doldrums. I grew up in a
world where people did mental
arithmetic just to fill the time.
Then I got over it — and some. I’ve come fully round to time-
saving apps. I’ve become
addicted to the luxury of clicking through for just about
everything I need. Yesterday
morning, for example, I realized I needed to know something
about a distant relative for a
book I’m writing. I’m old enough to remember when one had to
pack a bag and take a
train; when one had to stand in queues at libraries, complete an
application form, then
scroll for hours through hard-to-read microfiche and take notes
and repeat. I’m not 104,
but I wrote a whole book that way, my first, and it took forever
and it didn’t add much to
most of the paragraphs. Yesterday, I had the information from
an archive website in about
20 minutes. Then I made a list of winter clothes to purchase
from Mr. Porter. Then I
ordered a car from Uber to take me to King’s College London to
teach a class, and I
emailed my notes to my office computer from the car and I dealt

with a dozen emails and
I read a review of a restaurant I was going to that evening and
watched part of a video of
a ballet I was due to see before dinner.
What has been lost? Nothing. Has something gone out of my
experience of life by
ordering all the shopping on Ocado rather than by pushing a cart
around the aisles of a
supermarket for an hour and a half ? Yes: A pain in my backside
has been relieved. It is
all now done by a series of small, familiar flutterings over the
keyboard, which I can do at
my leisure, any time of day or night, without looking for the car
keys or straining my
sense of sociability by running into hundreds of people who are
being similarly tortured
http://www.ocado.com/webshop/startWebshop.do
Times
by their own basic needs. I’ve always liked music, the sheer
luxury of having a particular

recording there when you want to hear it, but nothing in my
long years of hunting for and
buying records can beat Spotify. I’ve heard many a nostalgist
say there was something
more, well, effortful, and therefore poetic, in the old system of
walking for miles to a
record shop only to discover they’d just sold out. People
become addicted to the weights
and measures of their own experience: We value our own story
and what it entails. But
we can’t become hostages to the romantic notion that the past is
always a better country.
There’s a few million girls with flatirons who will happily tell
you the opposite.
Getting better is getting better. Improvement is improving.
There will, of course, always
be people who feel alienated by a new thing and there might be
a compelling argument to
suggest all this availability is merely a high-speed way of
filling a spiritual gap in our
lives. Yet I can assure you there was no lack of spiritual gap in
the lives of people living in
small towns in 1982. It was just a lot harder to bridge that gap.
We used to wait for years

for a particular film to come on television, thinking we might
never see it. One had
practically to join a cult in order to share a passionate interest. I
can still remember
Tupperware parties, when — Oh, the good old days! — women
would meet at each other’s
houses on rain-soaked evenings to try out and buy pastel-
colored breakfast bowls. And
that was a good night! Communication was usually a stab in the
dark: You might find
someone to talk to about your favorite book, but more likely
you wouldn’t, unless you
moved to New York or took to wearing a sandwich board. And
now you can find the love
of your life by posting a picture and proving you’ve got a
GSOH (great sense of humor).
Every day now there’s something new to replace the old way of
doing a crucial thing that
was hard to do. Is it the middle of the night and you live in
Idaho and you want to talk to
someone about your roses? Is it Christmas Eve in Rome and you
want to know where to
hear some music and light a candle?

Physical loneliness can still exist, of course, but you’re never
friendless online. Don’t tell
me the spiritual life is over. In many ways it’s only just begun.
Technology is not doing
what the sci-fi writers warned it might — it is not turning us
into digits or blank
consumers, into people who hate community. Instead, there is
evidence that the
improvements are making us more democratic, more aware of
the planet, more interested
Times
in the experience of people who aren’t us, more connected to
the mysteries of privacy and
surveillance. It’s also pressing us to question what it means to
have life so easy, when
billions do not. I lived through the age of complacency, before
information arrived and the
outside world liquified its borders. And now it seems as if the
real split in the world will
not only be between the fed and the unfed, the healthy and the

unhealthy, but between
those with smartphones and those without.
Technology changed my character. It didn’t change my parents’.
My mother says she
wasn’t touched by the moon landing or the Internet, though she
admits that having a
fridge has made a wonderful difference. She’s not nostalgic for
the days when they would
place the milk bottles out on the window ledge overnight — that
does the trick, in
Scotland — though she has a general feeling that life was cozier
and friendlier years ago. I
must have taken some of that from her, but the more I think of it
the more I see it as an
affectation. For me, life did not become more complex with
technology, it’s became more
amenable, and what a supreme luxury it is, being able to
experience nowadays your own
reach in the world, knowing that there truly is no backwater,
except the one you happily
remember from the simple life of yore.
My daughter was right to laugh. Because what she was hearing
was a hint of vanity and a

note of pride in my stories of the unimproved life. In point of
fact, we sat in the past and
burned with the desire to get out, to meet people, to find our
voices, to discover the true
meaning of luxury in our confrontation with a panoply of
genuine choices. Our wish
wasn’t to plant a flag on the ground of what we knew and
defend it until death, but to sail
out, not quite knowing what was past the horizon but hoping we
might like it when we got
there. My favorite record when I was a teenager, trapped in a
box bedroom in a suburban
corner of old Europe, was “How Soon Is Now?” by the Smiths. I
had taken a bus and a
train and walked for miles to buy the record, and it told a story
about giving yourself up to
experience. I don’t know where the physical record has gone.
It’s probably still in my
mother’s attic. But the song is right here at the end of my
fingertips as I’m typing, and in
the new, constantly improving world around us, it took me just
under 15 seconds to locate
it. Would anyone care to dance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnpILIIo9ek

1/26/20, 10(11 AMThe Myth of Universal Love - The New York
Times
Page 1 of
8https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/the-myth-of-
universal-love/
Opinionator
A Gathering of Opinion From Around the Web
T H E STO N E
The Myth of Universal Love
By Stephen T. Asma January 5, 2013 1:54 pm
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other
thinkers on issues both
timely and timeless.
Now that the year-end holidays have passed, so have the barrage
of entreaties
to nurture a sense of “good will to all mankind,” to extend our
love and care to
others beyond our usual circle of friends and family. Certainly,
this is a message we
are meant to take to heart not just in December but all year
long. It is a central
ideal of several religious and ethical systems.
In the light of the new year, it’s worth considering how far we
actually can, or
should, extend this good will.

To some, the answer might seem obvious. One of the more
deeply engrained
assumptions of Western liberalism is that we humans can
indefinitely increase our
capacity to care for others, that we can, with the right effort and
dedication, extend
our care to wider and wider circles until we envelop the whole
species within our
ethical regard. It is an inspiring thought. But I’m rather
doubtful. My incredulity,
though, is not because people are hypocritical about their ideals
or because they
succumb to selfishness. The problem lies, instead, in a radical
misunderstanding
about the true wellsprings of ethical care, namely the emotions.
https://www.nytimes.com/
https://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/?module=BlogMain&acti
on=Click&region=Header&pgtype=Blogs&version=Blog%20Pos
t&contentCollection=Opinion
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-
stone/?module=BlogCategory&version=Blog%20Post&action=C
lick&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Heade
r
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/
Times
Page 2 of
universal-love/

Two of the leading liberal social theorists, Jeremy Rifkin and
Peter Singer,
think we can overcome factional bias and eventually become
one giant tribe. They
have different prescriptions for arriving at ethical utopia.
Singer, who is perhaps the world’s best known utilitarian
philosopher, argues
in his book “The Expanding Circle” that the relative neocortical
sophistication of
humans allows us to rationally broaden our ethical duty beyond
the “tribe” — to an
equal and impartial concern for all human beings. “If I have
seen,” Singer writes,
“that from an ethical point of view I am just one person among
the many in my
society, and my interests are no more important, from the point
of view of the
whole, than the similar interests of others within my society, I
am ready to see that,
from a still larger point of view, my society is just one among
other societies, and
the interests of members of my society are no more important,
from that larger
perspective, than the similar interests of members of other
societies.”
Like mathematics, which can continue its recursive operations
infinitely
upward, ethical reasoning can spiral out (should spiral out,
according to Singer) to
larger and larger sets of equal moral subjects. “Taking the
impartial element in
ethical reasoning to its logical conclusion means, first,
accepting that we ought to
have equal concern for all human beings.”

All this sounds nice at first — indeed, I would like it to be true
— but let me
throw a little cold water on the idea. Singer seems to be
suggesting that I arrive at
perfect egalitarian ethics by first accepting perfect egalitarian
metaphysics. But I,
for one, do not accept it. Nor, I venture to guess, do many
others. All people are not
equally entitled to my time, affection, resources or moral duties
— and only
conjectural assumption can make them appear so. (For many of
us, family
members are more entitled than friends, and friends more
entitled than
acquaintances, and acquaintances more than strangers, and so
on.) It seems
dubious to say that we should transcend tribe and be utilitarian
because all people
are equal, when the equal status of strangers and kin is an
unproven and
counterintuitive assumption.
Singer’s abstract “ethical point of view” is not wrong so much
as irrelevant.
Times
Page 3 of
universal-love/
Our actual lives are punctuated by moral gravity, which makes

some people (kith
and kin) much more central and forceful in our daily orbit of
values. (Gravity is
actually an apt metaphor. Some people in our lives take on great
“affection mass”
and bend our continuum of values into a solar-system of biases.
Family members
usually have more moral gravity —what Robert Nozick calls
“ethical pull.” [1])
One of the architects of utilitarian ethics, and a forerunner of
Singer’s logic,
was William Godwin (1756-1836), who formulated a famous
thought experiment.
He asked us to imagine if you could save only one person from
a burning building.
One of those persons is Archbishop Fénelon and the other is a
common
chambermaid. Furthermore, the archbishop is just about to
compose his famous
work “The Adventures of Telemachus” (an influential defense
of human rights).
Now here’s the rub. The chambermaid is your mother.
Godwin argues that the utilitarian principle (the greatest good
for the greatest
number) requires you to save the archbishop rather than your
mother. He asks,
“What magic is there in the pronoun ‘my’ that should justify us
in overturning the
decisions of impartial truth?”[2]
Singer has famously pushed the logic further, arguing that we
should do
everything within our power to help strangers meet their basic
needs, even if it

severely compromises our kin’s happiness. In the utilitarian
calculus, needs always
trump enjoyments. If I am to be utterly impartial to all human
beings, then I
should reduce my own family’s life to a subsistence level, just
above the poverty
line, and distribute the surplus wealth to needy strangers.
Besides the impracticalities of such redistribution, the problems
here are also
conceptual. Say I bought a fancy pair of shoes for my son. In
light of the one-tribe
calculus of interests, I should probably give these shoes to
someone who doesn’t
have any. I do research and find a child in a poor part of
Chicago who needs shoes
to walk to school every day. So, I take them off my son
(replacing them with
Walmart tennis shoes) and head off to the impoverished
Westside. On the way, I
see a newspaper story about five children who are malnourished
in Cambodia. Now
I can’t give the shoeless Chicago child the shoes, because I
should sell the shoes for
Times
Page 4 of
universal-love/
money and use the money to get food for the five malnourished
kids. On my way to

sell the shoes, I remember that my son has an important job
interview for a clean-
water nonprofit organization and if he gets the job, he’ll be able
to help save whole
villages from contaminated water. But he won’t get the job if he
shows up in
Walmart tennis shoes. As I head back home, it dawns on me that
for many people
in the developing world, Walmart tennis shoes are truly
luxurious when compared
with burlap sack shoes, and since needs always trump luxuries
I’ll need to sell the
tennis shoes too; and on, and on, and on.
~~~~
This brings us to the other recent argument for transcending
tribe, and it’s the
idea that we can infinitely stretch our domain of care. Jeremy
Rifkin voices a
popular view in his recent book “The Empathic Civilization”
that we can feel care
and empathy for the whole human species if we just try hard
enough. This view
has the advantage over Singer’s metric view, in that it locates
moral conviction in
the heart rather than the rational head. But it fails for another
reason.
I submit that care or empathy is a very limited resource. But it
is Rifkin’s
quixotic view that empathy is an almost limitless reserve. He
sketches a
progressive, ever widening evolution of empathy. First, we had
blood-based
tribalism (in what Rifkin calls the time of “forager/hunter

societies”), then
religion-based tribalism (after the invention of agriculture and
writing), then
nation-state tribalism (circa the 19th century), but now we are
poised for an
empathic embrace of all humanity — and even beyond species-
centric bias to
Buddha-like compassion for all creatures. He argues that
empathy is the real
“invisible hand” that will guide us out of our local and global
crises.
Using a secular version of Gandhi’s non-attachment mixed with
some old-
fashioned apocalyptic fearmongering, Rifkin warns us that we
must reach
“biosphere consciousness and global empathy in time to avert
planetary collapse.”
The way to do this, he argues, is to start feeling as if the entire
human race is our
extended family.
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/02/jeremy-
rifkin-the-third-industrial-revolution.html
Times
Page 5 of
universal-love/
I have to concede that I want cosmic love to work. I want Rifkin
to be right.

And in some abstract sense, I agree with the idea of an
evolutionary shared descent
that makes us all “family.” But feelings of care and empathy are
very different from
evolutionary taxonomy. Empathy is actually a biological
emotion (centered in the
limbic brain) that comes in degrees, because it has a specific
physiological chemical
progression. Empathy is not a concept, but a natural biological
event —an activity,
a process. (Affective neuroscience, including research by Jaak
Panksepp, Richard
Davidson and others, has converged on the idea that care is
actually a mammal
emotion, part chemical, part psychological.)
The feeling of care is triggered by a perception or internal
awareness and soon
swells, flooding the brain and body with subjective feelings and
behaviors (and
oxytocin and opioids). Care is like sprint racing. It takes time
— duration, energy,
systemic warm-up and cool-down, practice and a strange
mixture of pleasure and
pain (attraction and repulsion). Like sprinting, it’s not the kind
of thing you can do
all the time. You will literally break the system in short order,
if you ramp-up the
care system every time you see someone in need. The nightly
news would render
you literally exhausted. The limbic system can’t handle the kind
of constant
stimulation that Rifkin and the cosmic love proponents expect
of it. And that’s
because they don’t take into account the biology of empathy,
and imagine instead

that care is more like a thought.
If care is indeed a limited resource, then it cannot stretch
indefinitely to cover
the massive domain of strangers and nonhuman animals. Of
course, when we see
the suffering of strangers in the street or on television, our
heartstrings vibrate
naturally. We can have contagion-like feelings of sympathy
when we see other
beings suffering, and that’s a good thing — but that is a long
way from the kinds of
active preferential devotions that we marshal for members of
our respective tribes.
Real tribe members donate organs to you, bring soup when
you’re sick, watch your
kids in an emergency, open professional doors for you,
rearrange their schedules
and lives for you, protect you, and fight for you — and you
return all this hard
work. Our tribes of kith and kin are “affective communities”
and this unique
emotional connection with our favorites entails great generosity
and selfless
Times
Page 6 of
universal-love/
loyalty. There’s an upper limit to our tribal emotional
expansion, and that limit is a

good deal lower than the “biosphere.”
For my purposes, I’ll stick with Cicero, who said, “society and
human
fellowship will be best served if we confer the most kindness on
those with whom
we are most closely associated.”
~~~~
Why should our care be concentrated in small circles of kith and
kin? I’ve tried
to suggest that it can’t be otherwise, given the bio-emotional
origin of care, but
more needs to be said if I’m making a normative claim.
If we embraced our filial biases, we could better exercise some
disappearing
virtues, like loyalty, generosity and gratitude.
Cultivating loyalty is no small thing. George Orwell, for
example, considered
preferential loyalty to be the “essence of being human.”
Critiquing Gandhi’s
recommendation — that we must have no close friendships or
exclusive loves
because these will introduce loyalty and favoritism, preventing
us from loving
everyone equally — Orwell retorted that “the essence of being
human is that one
does not seek perfection, that one is sometimes willing to
commit sins for the sake
of loyalty … and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated
and broken up by
life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one’s love upon
other human

individuals.”
In general we have circles of favorites (family, friends, allies)
and we mutually
protect one another, even when such devotion disadvantages us
personally. But the
interesting thing about loyalty is that it ignores both merit-
based fairness and
equality-based fairness. It’s not premised on optimal conditions.
You need to have
my back, even when I’m sometimes wrong. You need to have
my back, even when I
sometimes screw up the job. And I have to extend the same
loyalty to you. That
kind of pro-social risky virtue happens more among favorites.
I also think generosity can better flourish under the umbrella of
favoritism.
Times
Page 7 of
universal-love/
Generosity is a virtue that characterizes the kind of affection-
based giving that we
see in positive nepotism. So often, nepotism is confused with
corruption, when it
really just means family preference. And favoritists (if I can
invent a word here) are
very good at selflessly giving to members of their inner circle.

Gratitude is another virtue that thrives more in a favoritism
context. The world
of Singer’s utilitarianism and Rifkin’s one-tribism is a world of
bare minimums,
with care spread thinly to cover per capita needs. But in
favoritism (like a love
relation) people can get way more than they deserve. It’s an
abundance of affection
and benefits. In a real circle of favorites, one needs to accept
help gracefully. We
must accept, without cynicism, the fact that some of our family
and friends give to
us for our own sake (our own flourishing) and not for their
eventual selfish gain.
However animalistic were the evolutionary origins of giving
(and however vigorous
the furtive selfish genes), the human heart, neocortex and
culture have all united to
eventually create true altruism. Gratitude is a necessary
response in a sincere circle
of favorites.
Finally, my case for small-circle care dovetails nicely with the
commonly
agreed upon crucial ingredient in human happiness, namely,
strong social bonds. A
recent Niagara of longitudinal happiness studies all confirm that
the most
important element in a good life (eudaimonia) is close family
and friendship ties —
ties that bind. These are not digital Facebook friends nor are
they needy faraway
strangers, but robust proximate relationships that you can count
on one or two
hands — and these bonds are created and sustained by the very
finite resource of

emotional care that I’ve outlined. As Graham Greene reminds
us, “one can’t love
humanity, one can only love people.”
FOOTNOTES
[1] See Robert Nozick’s Philosophical Explanations (Harvard
University
Press, 1981).
[2] See William Godwin’s 1798 Enquiry Concerning Political
Justice and its
Influence on Morals and Happiness, Vol. I (Toronto University
Press, 1946)
Times
Page 8 of
universal-love/
Stephen T. Asma is a fellow of the Research Group in Mind,
Science and
Culture at Columbia College Chicago, and author of, most
recently, “Against
Fairness.”
A version of this article appears in print on 01/06/2013, on page
SR3 of the NewYork edition
with the headline: The Myth Of Total Love.
© 2017 The New York Times Company

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo1
1468834.html
https://www.nytco.com/
ENG101-450 Essay 1 Overview
THE TOPIC FOR ESSAY 1: “Universal love” in the digital age
BIG QUESTION for Essay 1: After reading the three sources
and reflecting on the evidence and ideas presented in them, do
you think that digital technology makes “universal love” more
or less possible?
SOURCES FOR ESSAY 1
“The Myth of Universal Love” by Stephan T. Asma
“In Defense of Technology” by Andrew O’Hagan
“The Limits of Friendship” by Maria Konnikova
Essay 1 is an exploration of a topic combining what other
people think about our topic (They Say) with your perspective
(I Say). We begin Essay 1 with “The Myth of Universal Love”
by Stephan T. Asma. In this article, Asma sums up three views
on how far we can (or should) extend our love, in other words,
our significant relationships. We will then read two articles
about how digital technology affects relationships – adding a
new perspective to Asma’s ideas about universal love.
STEP 1 of writing this essay: Read and understand Asma’s
article.
· Complete Essay 1 Log_1.
· Formulate your response to Asma’s article: this is your
position on the theme of universal love. Which ideas in Asma’s
article seem most convincing to you? Which ideas seem wrong
to you?
· Summarize and quote the article and explain why you agree or
disagree. This will be the starting point of your essay.
STEP 2 of writing this essay: Now we are going to introduce the

DIGITAL AGE to Asma’s reflection on universal love. Indeed,
the issue of “universal” love is increasingly relevant in a
globalized world where digital technology makes global
communication possible, leading to relationships with people
far outside our family and communities.
· Read “In Defense of Technology” by Andrew O’Hagan (print
it from Blackboard) and “The Limits of Friendship” by Maria
Konnikova (I will give you a photocopy).
· Find evidence in the articles that seems relevant to the theme
of “universal love” (significant relationships outside of our
family and local communities) in the digital age.
· Complete Essay 1 Log_2.
· Answer this question: according to these articles, how does
digital technology affect relationships of love or friendship?
STEP 3 of writing this essay: End this essay with a
reassessment of your position in Step 1 of this essay. Did
O’Hagan and Konnikova’s articles make you change your
position on Asma’s article -- or not?
· Include the evidence from the two articles that contributed to
your final position on the possibility of real universal love in
the digital age.
Here is where you finally answer the BIG QUESTION: After
reading the three sources and reflecting on the evidence and
ideas presented in them, do you think that digital technology
makes “universal love” more or less possible?
Essay 1 Outline Template: Type your outline in the right
column
Send this outline to my email NO LATER THAN noon on
Sunday, Feb. 16.
BASIC STRUCTURE FOR ESSAY 1
Use the topic sentences I give you. Then develop the paragraph

following the structure in the left column: List your main
points. Type your quotations.
INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH
· GENERAL TOPIC of this essay: UNIVERSAL LOVE
· SPECIFIC TOPIC of this essay: UNIVERSAL LOVE IN THE
DIGITAL AGE
· Briefly introduce your SOURCES with “Title” and full
authors’ names.
· WRITE THE BIG QUESTION FOR THIS ESSAY
· THESIS STATEMENT: Answer the BIG QUESTION in the
thesis statement.
BODY PARAGRAPH 1: “The Myth of Universal Love” and
your position.
· TOPIC SENTENCE
· THEY SAY: Your summary of Singer, Rifkin, and Asma’s
positions + QUOTATIONS.
· I SAY: Which argument do you find most convincing? Why?
TOPIC SENTENCE: In “The Myth of Universal Love,” I find
_____________’s argument to be most convincing.
BODY PARAGRAPH 2:
“In Defense of Technology” and “The Limits of Friendship”
· TOPIC SENTENCE
· THEY SAY: O’Hagan’s position – 1 or 2 sentences +
QUOTATION
· THEY SAY: Konnikova’s position – 1 or 2 sentences +
QUOTATION
· Are these authors’ perspectives on “universal love” in the
digital age SIMILAR or DIFFERENT? Explain.
TOPIC SENTENCE: Two articles, “In Defense of Technology”
and “The Limits of Friendship,” introduce digital technology to
the controversy about universal love.
BODY PARAGRAPH 3: Your position after reading and
thinking about all three sources.

· Answer THE BIG QUESTION in this paragraph
· Give your REASONS in this paragraph.
· Use TRANSITION WORDS to mark each REASON: first,
second, next, moreover, finally, etc.
TOPIC SENTENCE: After reading the three sources and
reflecting on the evidence and ideas presented in them, I find
that digital technology makes “universal love” [more] [less]
possible.
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH: Reflect on your answer to the
BIG QUESTION. Did reading O’Hagan and Konnikova’s
articles make you change your position on Asma’s article? Are
you more or less hopeful now about the possibilities of
“expanding our ethical care to include all of humanity” (Asma)?
Sample format for Research Paper
Your Name
Professor Betancourt
GOVT 2305
Date
Title of Your Paper
THE ISSUE
Give a summary of the background of the issue. Identify what
the issue is and provide an historical overview, summary

of past court cases or legislation or any other relevant data.
How has the issue changed over time? The end of this
section should also include the thesis statement (e.g. “The goal
of this paper is to objectively present the two sides of
the … controversy, to identify the key political elements of the
debate and offer a recommended course of action”). This
section should be about 1 page in length
THE POSITIONS
In this section identify the various positions on the issue (e.g.
for and against, pro and con; or different ways of handling
an issue). Be sure to objectively cover the issue from both
perspectives. Avoid inflammatory language and logical
fallacies. Present DOCUMENTED support for each perspective
(not your personal opinion, but what other research has
found). You should paraphrase all information (put in your
OWN words). If you MUST use a direct quote, be sure it is
enclosed in quote marks and is IMMEDIATELY followed by the
appropriate citation. Information that is paraphrased
should still include an in-text citation). This should be the
longest part of your memo (aim for 1 ½ - 2 pages)
PUBLIC OPINION
What is public’s view on this issue? Has this view changed in
the last few years? Do some groups have a particular
viewpoint (e.g. women, minorities, etc…)?
www.peoplepress.org offers a lot of good public opinion data on
a wide
variety of topics. This section is ideal for including the
REQUIRED graphic element. Consider including a table of
public
information data. (Wherever you chose to include the graphic
element, be sure you 1) include the actual graphic in the
paper itself 2) include a citation directly under the graphic
(where you obtained the image, not just the citation that may
be ON the image; 3) Discuss the image in your text (e.g. “For

example in the table above you can see….”)) This section
should be approximately ½-1 page in length.
INTEREST GROUP POSITIONS
Identify and discuss 1 or 2 organized interest groups which
support or oppose each position/perspectives. Be
specific, identify the group, what they stand for and HOW they
are working for or against the issue. Try a
google search “Interest Groups that support…” This section
should be ½ to 1 page in length.
PARTISAN CONSIDERATIONS
What is the PARTY’s (Democratic / Republican) position on
this issue? You can usually find this information on the
Party’s website (www.democrats.org or www.GOP.org you
can also google “Republican Party view on… or Democratic
Party view on…). Be careful not to confuse people who
identify with a party with the actual position of the party) This
section should be approximately ½-1 page in length.
CONCLUSION/ RECCOMENDATION
Give a short recap of the main points outlined in the paper.
You may also write a general recommended course of
action. This is the only section where you can offer your own
personal opinion. (e.g. “Based on all of the information
presented above, I believe that the best course of action would
be to….”)
http://www.peoplepress.org/
http://www.democrats.org/
http://www.gop.org/Sample format for Research PaperYour
NameTitle of Your PaperTHE ISSUE

of 2 Policy Project Proposal Focused Topic .docx

Page 1 of 2 Policy Project Proposal Focused Topic .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Page 1 of 2 Policy Project Proposal Focused Topic .docx

Similar to Page 1 of 2 Policy Project Proposal Focused Topic .docx (7)

More from honey690131

More from honey690131 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Page 1 of 2 Policy Project Proposal Focused Topic .docx