I find Michael Walzer\u2019s argument rather incomplete, mainly due to its inability to be falsified due to its ambiguous and unspecific nature. Walzer\u2019s theory does not include the notion of time, therefore preventing it from being proven or disproven given that it is dependent on events and interactions that are ever-changing. In Walzer\u2019s argument advocating for \u2018moral minimalism,\u2019 he discusses how \u201cunless we can identify a neutral starting point from which many different and possibly legitimate moral cultures might develop, we can\u2019t construct a proceduralist minimum.\u201d I find Walzer\u2019s claim that humanity\u2019s progression is much dependent on a universal set of minimalist ideologies and cultures to be not only ridiculous, as that is next to impossible, but contradictory, as \u2018ethnic,\u2019 cultural, and ideological divides are much of what is hindering peace and progression today. Due to how incomplete Walzer\u2019s argument seems to me, as he can be proven neither right nor wrong, I find it to be largely irrelevant as a whole.<\/p>\n
While I find it easier to stand alongside Fukuyama\u2019s point in the \u201cEnd of History\u201d after reading it, I don\u2019t believe it due to the empirical data that we have witnessed since its publication in the early 1990s. While the article may be harder to falsify, as there is always a chance that countries will progress towards the \u2018end of history,\u2019 it is fairly easy to see, due to what is unfolding before us, that there is a great chance that that may never happen.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I find Michael Walzer\u2019s argument rather incomplete, mainly due to its inability to be falsified due to its ambiguous and unspecific nature. Walzer\u2019s theory does not include the notion of time, therefore preventing it from being proven or disproven given … Continue reading