Discussion Question 3 for May 11

The second part of Rawls’s second principle is called the difference principle, and it is even more egalitarian than Rawls’s idea of fair equality of opportunity.
The difference principle says that there should be no differences in income and wealth, except those differences that make even the least advantaged members of society better off. Not even superior effort makes a person deserving of special rewards. After all, argues Rawls, your ability to make a good effort is partly dependent on how good your childhood was, whether your parents loved you and provided encouragement, or whether you were neglected and abandoned. All of these are factors over which you had no control. Therefore, if you are now ableto make a good effort, you can’t really claim credit for it. Do you agree?

Is it true that you can’t really claim credit for your upbringing? Surely, your habits and temperaments today are partly the result of your upbringing. Does this mean that you don’t really deserve what you get from making an effort?

Think of some of the advantages that you have in your life. Do you deserve them more than other people who lack them? If so, why? If not, should these advantages be provided to everyone?

Do you think it’s unjust if some people are much worse off than others merely because they were born with fewer talents or with a debilitating disease and the need for expensive medicines? Why should people be worse off merely because of the way they were born?

1st Question on Rawls Discussion

Rawls thinks that we can understand what justice is by considering the idea of a fair agreement. According to Rawls, an agreement is not necessarily fair even if it is voluntary. In order to be fair, an agreement must also be made against a background of equality. It is unfair if one of the contracting parties is able to take advantage of the other party because he is stronger, richer, better informed or simply more powerful.

Is Rawls right about what counts as a fair agreement?

Imagine that you are poor and cannot find work due to an economic recession. One day a new employer comes to town and offers you a job in his factory for a wage of 50 cents per hour. The employer exerts no pressure. He simply makes his offer and says, politely, “Take it or leave it.” You accept the offer, not without gratitude, because you have no reasonable alternative. Is the contract between you and your new employer voluntary? Is the contract fair?

2nd Question on Rawls Discussion

According to Rawls, justice is the outcome of a fair contract. However, for Rawls a contract is guaranteed to be fair only if the contracting parties are not able to take advantage of each other. Rawls therefore proposes that the principles of justice are the outcome of a special, hypothetical contract, concluded between behind a “veil of ignorance,” where no one knows any of his personal qualities, strengths, or weaknesses.
Is this the right way to think about principles of justice?
Should we abstract from our personal qualities, strengths, and aspirations in choosing principles of justice to govern our society?

Do you think that you should be able to make reference to your religious beliefs, or your life goals, when proposing rules for society? Is it even possible to make such an important decision without knowing who you are and what goals and beliefs you have?

As a matter of justice, should laws always be blind to the differences between people?

3rd Question for Discussion on Rawls

Rawls argues that the concept of Justice ultimately rests on two philosophical principles; autonomy (we take on the 'obligation' freely) and reciprocity (we have to fulfill our 'obligations' because we have recieved benefits from others). How do these ideas apply to the 'obligation' of education and the student/teacher 'contract'?

Discussion Questions for April 6th

We've now learned of four different political philosophies; Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, Lockean Democracy, and Kantian Idealism. For the following situations, feel free to use any of them, or pieces of all of them, to reach a decision on what the 'just' action should be. Of course you can always choose 'none of the above' and make your decision based on some other set of principles (although I'd love to hear what you disliked about the options given :>). Explain your rationale and have fun! 1.You are a bridesmaid at your sister's wedding, and her soon to be husband (for whom you have always had some special affection) makes a move on you. What do you do? 2.As a doctor, you have found a possible cure for cancer, but you must trest the drug on animals. There is a strong possibility that the animals tested will die. Should you go ahead and test the drug? 3.Your grandma knits you a pink sweater with bunnies (or anything else you would find embarassing :>) on it. She is coming to an important event in your honor and she wants to see you in the sweater she spent all year making. Do you wear the sweater?

March 16th Discussion Question 3

Nozick’s argues that if something was originally acquired justly, and later transferred justly, then it is now owned justly—and neither the government nor anyone else should be allowed to take it away.
The problem here is that many things that are owned today—money, land, natural resources—were originally acquired by force and violence, through war and colonization. Also, what do we do about "transfers" where the "buyer" wasn't properly "informed", or was coericed by desperation. What about paying wages below what the work is worth because of an overabundence of laborers? What if anything should be done about that?
How is it that people can initially come to acquire something justly and what is required for transfers of justly owned things to be just? Be sure to give your reasoning!

March 16th Discussion Question 2

Libertarian philosopher R. Nozick argues taxation for any reason other than national defensive and public safety requires taking a richer person’s earnings and giving them to a poorer person. But this is like forcing the rich person to work for the benefit of the poor person. Therefore, says Nozick, redistributive taxation (Nozick's term for such taxes) is like forced labor. Is Nozick right?
Is redistributive taxation really like forced labor? Forced labor is a kind of slavery. Are rich people who have to pay taxes like slaves? In what sense?