In this online discussion assignment, respond to each of the following questions three questions and be sure to 1: Cite specific examples from relevant Canvas course material and 2) as an extra credit option you can also cite Prof. Sandel's video lectures on justice available here on our Canvas site, however this not required. Your response should be a minimum of 500 to 700 words. 1) Define the libertarian and utilitarian theories of justice. What are the main reasons each theory uses to support how it defines justice? What are the main objections to each theory? Whose interests are served by each theory? Who or what is left out? 2) Consider the particular ill-fated drone strike case discussed in the readings. What forms of power are involved? What generation(s) of human rights are implicated? 3) Here you want to describe how the main ideas of each theory relates to this case. In general, utilitarians would support drone strikes even if innocents are killed. Libertarians would be opposed. Your task is to give a full explanation why proponents of each theory of justice would respond that way. This needs to go deeper than libertarians don't like big government. It's true they don't, but why? And how does that deeper why connect to drone strikes? (For extra credit can you explain how someone might use utilitarian reasoning to oppose the drone strikes?) 4) Now we turn to learning to analyze and assess these main ideas. More specifically you want to assess how well the main ideas of each theory apply to the case. Do the main reasons underlying each theory present a legitimate or illegitimate justification to respond to the use of power via drone strikes by placing individual rights over the majority or by placing the good of the majority over the rights of the individual? It is a complex case, so you may find that you agree or disagree with both theories in part. For instance, you may agree with the libertarian position on drone strikes, while also agreeing with some of the major objections to libertarian theory as a one-size-fits-all approach to achieving justice. All perspectives are valid if supported with reasoned argument and evidence (see below). Remember to support your conclusions with evidence and examples from the readings or videos. Once you have demonstrated familiarity with the assigned readings and videos, you can also use outside sources (though outside sources are not required). Supporting your conclusions with evidence and examples is a critically important step. We all have political opinions. Academic assignments require more than opinion. It requires reasoned argument with evidence and clarifying examples. Your initial response to the questions should be at least 500-700 words and substantive in content. "We're Americans and we're always right (wrong)," is not a substantive response. You are also expected to post two responses to other students' ideas. Your responses to other students should be at least a full paragraph (a minimum of 4 to 5 sentences) and cite examples and evidence. "I agree Steve! Awesome post." will not be considered an adequate response. The best advice on assignments I ever got as an undergrad (from my favorite Constitutional Law professor) was the following: When professors are grading, they love to see students comparing and contrasting opposing views before reaching a conclusion. For example, “Side A argues X. Side B argues Y. The evidence seems to suggest that (cite specific evidence and examples). Then, choose one of the following: (side A is right, side B is right, they are both right and/or wrong) for the following reasons: Reason 1. Reason 2. Reason 3.