The Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen argues that liberalism has failed. His claims stand in sharp contrast to those of the Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, whose recent book, Enlightenment Now, argues that humanity’s lot has improved greatly because of the ideals of the liberal Enlightenment.
In your paper, please give at least three specific examples of their disagreement. Why do the accounts of Deneen and Pinker seem to contradict each other? What larger philosophical differences underlie their disagreement?
In your conclusion, you might ask whether it is possible to reconcile their seemingly opposing positions and whether the two have any points of agreement? You might also reflect on the significance of their disagreement: why might it matter?
Sample Solution
