One of the main problems issued in "The Tempest" is how to address different claims on for territory and different claims for authority or sovereignty. The author entertains problems of cultural absolutism and cultural relativism, asking us to decide what behaviors we should authorize, which are locally relative, and which should be forbidden universally. In 1200 words, I would like you to make an argument for these topics, answering the question(s):
When explorers or settlers from one culture and place, encounter those of another, how should land ownership be established? Do current residents own the land, or is it ownership a privilege of power? Are there moral claims that can be used to deny national sovereignty (i.e. for the following behaviors, a government can lose its claim on a territory, or an invasion can be justified by a foreign power?) What about refugees or questions of need? If one country has a great deal of space and resources, while another has many people and few resources and little space do their needs outweigh the claims of others, or do we operate on a theory of original ownership as absolute. And if we do, how do we establish that original authority?
Are there certain behaviors that should be thought universally taboo or improper? How do we determine these? How do cultural traditions and national boundaries affect the authority to enforce these beliefs and protect victims and punish cultural criminals? List which behaviors you believe are absolutely inhumane and should be universally condemned, give a rationale as to why, and some plan for thinking about how they can be enforced both within one culture and throughout human society.