Pick which ever one is easier for you

 assignment is to write a short paper in which you will discuss and defend your opinion on one of the following topics:

1. In any government dedicated to republican principles (equality, liberty, universalism [as opposed to nationalism or tribalism]), there exists the need to balance the competing forces of equality and liberty.  On some occasions, when no absolute balance is possible, a decision will have to be made preferencing one over the other.  Assume that you are a government official, a legislator or judge perhaps.  You confront a situation in which you must decide whether equality or liberty is more important.  Remembering the ideals of a republic noted above, which will you choose and why? 

2. Of the many approaches to existentialism which we discussed, three, in particular, make exceptionally interesting arguments about the meaning and purpose of human existence.  First, atheist existentialism as represented by Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre.  Second, phenomenological existentialism as introduced by Martin Heidegger.  Third, religious existentialism as discussed by Gabriel Marcel and Miguel de Unamuno.  Choose one of these three approaches and explain why you believe it is correct.

If you choose option 1, then you should (a) pick either equality or liberty and (b) explain why it should take priority over the other.  

If you choose option 2, then you should (a) pick one of the three approaches to existentialism and (b) explain why you think it is correct.

Your paper should:

1. Be between 950 and 1100 words in length (this is approximately 3 – 4 pages).  If the paper is less than 950 or more than 1250 words in length, you will lose points. 

2. Have one inch margins all around and use 12 point, Times New Roman or Arial font.

3. Focus on making the best arguments possible.  This is not a research paper, so you should not spend significant amounts of time studying various online or text sources.  I am chiefly interested in your ability to coherently defend your opinion.  Your conclusion is not as important as how well you are able to defend it.

4. If you choose option two, first, explain the basics of the theory that you chose. If you do not understand Heidegger, for example, there is no way that you will be able to write an effective defense of why you believe his approach is correct, because you cannot argue in favor of it if you do not understand it.

5. Avoid citations, since this is intended to be an original work that you, personally, craft. If you must use citations (from your textbook or other source), use them sparingly.  I prefer Chicago-style citations, but I will accept MLA. DO NOT USE APA style citations!