1) The U.S. Treasury Department recently decided to replace the front image on the $20 bill – currently showing a visage of U.S. President Andrew Jackson – with an image of Harriet Tubman. Her inclusion, as a recognition of her role in operating the underground railroad in the years prior to and during the American Civil War, has been simultaneously praised and denounced. Her supporters on the political left recognize this as a twofold acknowledgement that encompasses the contributions of both women and African-Americans to the American political experiment. The political right, on the other hand, and in the words of prominent talk-show host Greta van Susteren, sees this move by the Treasury department as “unnecessarily divid[ing] the country.” In an essay, explain how Aristotle would see this move by the Treasury Department. Would you agree with his interpretation? Why or why not?
[Helpful Hint: You can use both the Nicomachean Ethics and The Politics to make your case. Also remember that using Aristotle does not necessarily imply that you need to critique the Treasury Department’s decision. The trick is to use the entirety of the text(s) to support your argument. In other words, don’t just rely on the first few chapters of The Politics to make your case. Even if you think this part holds the key to the question, make sure you at least acknowledge the possibility of a different answer.]
Books for citation:
4) Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
5) Aristotle, The Politics
Access to books:
https://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/aristotle/Politics.pdf
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99036947.pdf
For special consideration:
external sources are not allowed and are the paper is scrutinized to make sure ideas haven;t been taken from other websites. Many thanks!
