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?

March 16th Discussion

According to libertarians, the greatest threat to individual rights comes from the government. Libertarians think that many kinds of laws violate people’s rights. Whenever the government prohibits a self-endangering activity—like driving without a seat belt—it is being unacceptably paternalist. Whenever the government prohibits deviant but harmless behavior—like nonstandard sexual practices—it is being oppressive. Whenever the government taxes people for redistributive purposes, it is stealing from them and forcing them to work for the benefit of other people.

Must the government stop trying to make poor people less poor, and sick people less sick, and so on, or is it possible to maintain a desirable pattern without restricting people’s liberty to do what they want with what they own?
Even if it’s not possible to maintain a desirable pattern without restricting liberty somewhat, are Libertarians right to think that people should have the liberty to do whatever they want with the things they own?

Pick one of the following (ok you can do more if you like :>) and argue pro or con. Remember to let us see you reasoning please.
Is it permissible for the government to regulate market transactions with an eye on the effects they have on the participants and other people?
Is it permissible for the government to pass laws against price gouging in the wake of a natural disaster?
Is it permissible for the government to regulate employment contracts? Are minimum wage laws really unjust?
Is it permissible for the government to insist on health and safety standards in workplaces?
Is it permissible for the government to block companies from forming a monopoly?

Feb. 16th Discussion Question 3

Does utilitarianism threaten individual rights? What if the sum total of the pain caused by sacrificing the civil rights of a minority is less than the sum total of the pleasure derived as a result by the majority?
John Stuart Mill tried to rebut the objection that utilitarianism cannot account for individual rights. He argued that, far from being in tension with individual rights, the principle of utility was actually the justification for protecting rights. In other words, Mill believed that protecting individual rights is the best way to increase the sum of happiness in the long run. Was Mill right? Is this the best reason for not violating people’s basic rights? Give your rationale.

Feb. 16th Discussion Question 2

For utilitarians like Bentham, happiness is simply the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. People are happy insofar as they feel pleasure, unhappy insofar they feel pain; there is nothing else that goes into happiness. Abilities, achievements, friendship, love—all these are, at best, only means to being happy, and only insofar as they give rise to pleasure. How do you feel about this idea? Be sure to give your rationale.

Feb 16th Discussion Question 1

Suppose that we have to choose between building a new sports stadium and building a new hospital. How would you make this decision? Give your rationale in as much detail as you feel comfortable

Jan 26th ethical dilemma question #3

3. There are many needy people in the world who could benefit from your help. If you were to volunteer one evening per week, you could reduce need and thereby increase the sum of happiness. But if you were to volunteer all of your evenings, then you could produce even more happiness. Should you volunteer all of your spare time to helping the needy? Would it be wrong not to do so?

Jan 26th ethical dilemma question # 2

2. Suppose a man has been missing for many years, and you have just learned that he is dead. Should you tell the man’s father, even if it will crush his hopes and send him into despair? Does utilitarianism have the right answer?

Jan 26th ethical delimma question # 1

1. Suppose a man has planted a bomb in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. Should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber? Does utilitarianism get the right answer?
1a. Now suppose the man who has planted the bomb will not reveal the location unless an innocent member of his family is tortured. Should it be legal for the police to torture innocent people, if that is truly the only way to discover the location of a large bomb? Does utilitarianism have the right answer?

About this collaborative learning team

This collaborative team activity will study ways to add to learning by refining student thought through the dialog process. We will involve students in discourse of import to curricular areas that will promote higher order thinking skills and foster classroom learning communities. These goals will align to Iowa Core Standards by helping teachers increase the rigor and relevance of content material as well as providing formative assessment of student understanding throughout the discussion process. Differentiated instructional areas addressed during the study and follow-up collaborative work will include: Quality Curriculum, Continuous Assessment, and Building Community.  This effort will allow teachers to support different styles of learners with different readiness levels to participate successfully.

We will read the book Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? by Michael Sandel. As a group we will watch the videos connected with each of 10 topics. We will then develop rules of discourse to discuss the topics in groups. These will be incorporated into rubric form for self-assessment to be used by study group members and students in classes to determine their progress toward appropriate, effective discourse in a learning community.  Our project will be to develop lessons that involve a philosophical class discussion and to provide a summary of these activities to the group for shared evaluation and refinement.

How to follow this blog...

Please sign up to follow this blog in the same way you did for the West Staff Development Blog. You should already have a Google account, so just follow these steps:

Click on the Follow button

Click on the Google button

Sign in to Google 

Follow publicly

Click on the Done button.