Only paraphrase the answers (re-word)

User Generated

Nyvoeb

Writing

Description

Hello there is one file attached, all you have to do is to reword the answers deferentially, in other words, paraphrase the whole answers please.

thanks!

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Chapter 6 1. What is the veil of ignorance, according to Rawls? What is the purpose of it? The veil of ignorance according to Rawls is the the veil that temporarily prevents us from knowing anything about who in particular we are. It is our ignorance about our class or gender, our race or ethnicity, our political opinions or religious convictions. It is when we don’t know our advantages and disadvantages, whether we are healthy or frail, highly educated or a high-school dropout, and if born to supportive family or a broken one. The purpose of it is to deliver the idea that how everyone will agree to choose justice and only justice for everyone. 2. Why does Rawls believe it is necessary if we are trying to figure out what justice in society is? Rawls believes that the veil of ignorance is necessary if we are trying to figure out what justice in society is because it will allow us to see clearly what justice has to achieve for everyone. If we are covered by this veil, we will not be blocked by our situations or what we already have in life. We will have a better look, a better understanding, and a better idea of justice and what it should be. 3. What is Rawls idea of a social contract? A hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality. Rawls idea of a social contact is that it is the hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality. He argues that the way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of equality. He brings the veil of ignorance to show us that all of us will agree on justice if we are to think about it without thinking about our social and economic differences. 4. Why does Rawls want you to be self-interested? What does this add to the “original position?” Indeed this adds everything to the original position. If we are self-interested when we are veiled by ignorance in regard to our social and economic differences, we would end up choosing justice for everyone. Even the principles of justice will come clear to us and for all of us to agree upon. 5. Why does Rawls believe that we wouldn’t choose utilitarianism? Rawls believes that we wouldn’t choose utilitarianism because we might end up a member of an oppressed minority. Ending up as a member of an oppressed minority means that we will suffer in order for the majority to be happy and enjoy utility. 6. Why does Rawls believe that we wouldn’t choose libertarianism? Rawls believes that we would end up as a homeless person without help from a private charity. We want to avoid such a system that could leave us destitute and without help. 7. What are the two principles of justice that he believes we would set up in our hypothetic social contract? The two principles of justice that Rawls believes in are as following: 1- providing equal basic liberties for all citizens, such as freedom of speech and religion. 2- The second principle concerns social and economic equality. Although it does not require an equal distribution of income and wealth, it permits only those social and economic inequalities that work to the advantage of the least well off members of society. 8. Are contracts fair because the parties signing them agree to the terms? Is consent a sign of fairness and justice in contracts? Why or why not? No, contract can be unfair even if the parties signing them agree to the terms. Consent is not a sign of fairness and justice in contracts. This is because actual contracts are not self-sufficient moral instruments. As Sandel puts it “the mere fact that you and I make a deal is not enough to make it fair. Of any actual contract, it can always be asked, “Is it fair, what they agreed to?” To answer this question, we can’t simply point to the agreement itself; we need some independent standard of fairness.” 9. Actual contracts, some argue, carry moral weight when what two elements are present? Why are these two necessary? Yes, actual contracts carry moral weight as they realize two ideals—autonomy and reciprocity. As Sandel puts it “contracts express our autonomy; the obligations they create carry weight because they are self-imposed—we take them freely upon ourselves. As instruments of mutual benefit, contracts draw on the ideal of reciprocity; the obligation to fulfill them arises from the obligation to repay others for the benefits they provide us. 10. What are the two points Sandel is trying to make with the toilet/fix/$50,000 charge story? The two points Sandel is trying to make with the toilet/fix/$charge story are as following: 1- The fact of an agreement does not guarantee the fairness of the agreement. 2- Consent is not enough to create a binding moral claim. As Sandel explains it “far from an instrument of mutual benefit, this contract mocks the ideal of reciprocity. This explains, I think, why few people would say that the elderly woman was morally obliged to pay the outrageous sum.” 11. How does Sandel support the claim that consent might not be a necessary condition of moral obligation? Sandel supports the claim that consent might not be a necessary condition of moral obligation by bringing the story of Hume’s house. As Sandel says “the idea that an obligation to repay a benefit can arise without consent is morally plausible in the case of Hume’s house.” Also, He explained that consent might not be necessary condition of moral obligation in a benefit-based view rather than a consent-based one. 12. Why do most contracts fall short of the ideals of autonomy and reciprocity? There is usually someone with a superior bargaining position, agreements aren’t wholly voluntary or even coerced; negotiating with someone with greater knowledge of the things being exchanged, deal may not be mutually beneficial. 13. Why does he think that the Veil of Ignorance resolves the above-listed issues? The veil of ignorance resolves the above-listed issued because it ensures the equality of power and knowledge that the original position requires. As Sandel puts it “by ensuring that no one knows his or her place in society, his strengths or weaknesses, his values or ends, the veil of ignorance ensures that no one can take advantage, even unwittingly, of a favorable bargaining position.” 14. Why might we decide that a totally equal system of distribution of income is not the best option? What is the difference principle? This is because it is not fair. I like how Sandel puts it “allowing everyone to enter the race is a good thing. But if the runners start from different starting points, the race is hardly fair.” That is why, Rawls argues, the distribution of income and wealth that results from a free market with formal equality of opportunity cannot be considered just. The most obvious injustice of the libertarian system “is that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by these factors so arbitrary from a moral point of view.” 15. Rawls is not concerned with the assessing the fairness of one particular person’s salary over another’s. He is focusing on systems, structures and the way it allocates rights and duties, income and wealth, power and opportunities. What does this mean?? That’s true. He is focusing on systems, structures and the way it allocates rights and duties, income and wealth, power and opportunities to ensure justice for everyone. 16. Why does Rawls believe that people wouldn’t be willing to gamble their chances on a highly unequal society? Rawls believes that people wouldn’t be willing to gamble their chances on a highly unequal society because they don’t won’t risk ending up in an oppressed minority group. According to Rawls, we wouldn’t choose utilitarianism because behind the veil of ignorance, we don’t know where we will wind up in society, but we do know that we will want to pursue our ends and be treated with respect. He adds that in order to protect against these dangers, we would reject utilitarianism and agree to a principle of equal basic liberties for all citizens, including the right to liberty of conscience and freedom of thought. And we would insist that this principle take priority over attempts to maximize the general welfare. We would not sacrifice our fundamental rights and liberties for social and economic benefits. 17. Why does Rawls argue that the distribution of wealth that results from a free market system is not just? Because this system corresponds to the libertarian theory of justice. It represents an improvement over feudal and caste societies, since it rejects fixed hierarchies of birth. Legally, it allows everyone to strive and to compete. In practice, however, opportunities may be far from equal. 18. What arbitrary characteristics in our current society allow some people to have a greater statistical advantage in “success” (money, power, etc.) than others? Do you mean why? Arbitrary characteristics in our current society allow some people to have a great statistician advantages in success (money, power, etc.) because income, wealth, opportunity, and power are distributed according to the accident of birth. As Sandel puts it “if you are born into nobility, you have rights and powers denied those born into serfdom. But the circumstances of your birth are no doing of yours. So it’s unjust to make your life prospects depend on this arbitrary fact.” 19. Why does Rawls argue that the meritocratic conception of justice is flawed? He believes that the meritocratic conception corrects for certain morally arbitrary advantages, but still falls short of justice. Also, both base distributive shares on factors that are morally arbitrary. “Even if it works to perfection in eliminating the influence of social contingencies,” Rawls writes, the meritocratic system “still permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents.” 20. How does Rawls’s difference principle correct for the unequal distribution of talents and endowments without handicapping the talented? Rawls shows that a leveling equality is not the only alternative to a meritocratic market society. Rawls’s alternative, which he calls the difference principle, corrects for the unequal distribution of talents and endowments without handicapping the talented. “Encourage the gifted to develop and exercise their talents, but with the understanding that the rewards these talents reap in the market belong to the community as a whole.” 21. How does Rawls respond to the objection regarding incentives? Rawls’s reply is that the difference principle permits income inequalities for the sake of incentives, provided the incentives are needed to improve the lot of the least advantaged. As Sandel says “paying CEOs more or cutting taxes on the wealthy simply to increase the gross domestic product would not be enough. But if the incentives generate economic growth that makes those at the bottom better off than they would be with a more equal arrangement, then the difference principle permits them.” 22. How does Rawls respond to the objection regarding effort? Rawls believes that even effort may be the product of a favorable upbringing. “Even the willingness to make an effort, to try, and so to be deserving in the ordinary sense is itself dependent upon happy family and social circumstances.”And as Sandel explains it “like other factors in our success, effort is influenced by contingencies for which we can claim no credit.” “It seems clear that the effort a person is willing to make is influenced by his natural abilities and skills and the alternatives open to him. The better endowed are more likely, other things equal, to strive conscientiously . . .” 23. How does Rawls argue against the idea of “moral desert?” (What is moral desert?) Moral desert is deserving something in moral terms for something you have done. So for instance if I murder someone, we might think that morally, I deserve to have something bad happen to me. Or if I help someone out, I deserve to be rewarded. Rawls doesn't think that we deserve to benefit from arbitrary things like our skin color or our natural talents - since you're not responsible for what color your skin is or what talents you were born with, society shouldn't automatically be set up to reward you just for being white or for being able to run really fast. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapter 8 1. Why does Sandel begin this chapter with the story about the cheerleader? What points is he trying to make with this story? Sandel begins this chapter with the story about the cheerleader to make two points. The first point is fairness. The second one is resentment. 2. According to Sandel, how do we determine the fair way of allocating the cheerleading position? According to Sandel, we can use the principle of nondiscrimination. It was not Callie’s fault that she is physically disabled. Meaning that as long as she can perform well as a cheerleader, she should not be excluded. 3. Why might some parents object to Callie being a cheerleader? Some parents might object to Callie being a cheerleader because of their resentment that probably reflects a sense that Callie is being accorded an honor she doesn’t deserve. As Sandel puts it “if great cheerleading is something that can be done from a wheelchair, then the honor accorded those who excel at tumbles and splits is depreciated to some degree. If Callie should be a cheerleader because she displays, despite her disability, the virtues appropriate to the role, her claim does pose a certain threat to the honor accorded the other cheerleaders.” 4. What are two ideas that are central to Aristotle’s conception of justice? As mentioned in Sandel’s book: 1. Justice is teleological. Defining rights requires us to figure out the telos (the purpose, end, or essential nature) of the social practice in question. 2. Justice is honorific. To reason about the telos of a practice—or to argue about it—is, at least in part, to reason or argue about what virtues it should honor and reward. 5. Why does Aristotle not believe that justice is about pursuing neutral ends? He does not think that justice can be neutral. He thinks that justice and good life should be connected as justice is about honor, virtue, and nature of the good life. For Aristotle, justice means giving people what they deserve, giving each person his or her due. 6. Justice involves what two factors? Justice involves two factors: “things, and the persons to whom things are assigned.” 7. If we were distributing flutes—who should get the best flutes? According to Aristotle, why is this? The best flute player. This is because the flute should be played well and the best flute player deserves the best flute because it fits his ability of playing the flute. 8. What is the role of “purpose” in determining who should get what? The purpose of flutes is to produce excellent music. Those who can best realize this purpose ought to have the best ones. 9. What is the utilitarian answer to whom should get the best flute? Why doesn’t Aristotle choose this answer? The utilitarian would answer the same but for a different purpose. The purpose of utilitarian is to make everyone happy and to produce the best music by giving the best instruments to the best players as this will create more happiness. Aristotle claims that in order to determine the just distribution of a good, we have to inquire into the telos, or purpose, of the good being distributed. 10. What is a telos? Telos is the purpose. 11. What does it mean for a method to be teleological? The method is teleological if it considers the purpose or the end of the situation or decision. 12. According to Aristotle, how do we determine the just distribution of a good? We have to inquire in the telos or purpose of distributing that good. 13. If Nobel Prize winning economists and a varsity tennis team both want to use the tennis courts—how would Aristotle determine who should use it and why? According to Aristotle, varsity tennis teams should use it because they have more reasons of using it since the purpose of the tennis courts are for the tennis players to use it and not really for economists. 14. Why did Plato and Aristotle believe that fire rose to the sky? How did this impact their understanding of the natural world? Because they thought it was trying to reach the sky as its natural home. They thought nature had a meaningful order because of this. 15. Why don’t we use teleological reasoning in science any longer? We don’t do that because modern science found out that nature is governed by the law of physics. 16. Arguments about justice and rights are often arguments about what? They are arguments about the distribution of justice and who deserves what and why. They include distributive justice. They are about the welfare, happiness, and the better chances for us, the human beings. 17. For Aristotle, what was distributive justice primarily about? It is primarily about offices and honors. It is about who should have the right to rule and how the authority should be distributed. 18. What is the purpose of politics for Aristotle? (page 194) The purpose of politics for Aristotle is for people to have a good life. 19. According to Aristotle, who should hold public office? Those people who display the greatest civic virtue merit and the highest offices and honors. According to him, only those who are good and have civic virtue and merit should hold public office. 20. Why does Aristotle believe that participating in politics is essential for living a good life? Because we are in a higher level and degree compared to other animals. Aristotle thinks that we should participate in politics because we are meant for political association. 21. What does Aristotle mean by “happiness?” According to Aristotle, happiness is not a state of mind but a state of being. We achieve this if we are virtuous. 22. How does one become “just?” We become just by doing just acts. 23. What is moral education about? It is about forming habits and shaping characters which should start from early childhood or youth because habit is hard to change and they are built slowly. 24. For Aristotle, how do you become virtuous? It is done by being steeped in virtuous behavior. 25. What are habits and how do they relate to virtue? Habits are formed step by step. However, habit can’t be the whole of moral virtue. Habits should change depending on the situation. 26. What does it mean for moral virtue to be at the mean between the extremes? It means using the right judgment in any situation. It is doing the right thing at the right time with the right motive, and in a right way. 27. Why are Kant and Rawls uneasy with the notion of “fit?” It is because liberal theories of justice coming from Kant’s and Rawls worry that teleological conceptions are at odds with freedom. For them, justice is not about fit but about choice. 28. According to a libertarian, Rawls and Aristotle, are dangerous, repetitive jobs just? Why or why not? For Aristotle, how could it become a just job situation? For Rawls, it is just if there is a free exchange of labor against fair background conditions. For Aristotle, the consent is not sufficient but it must be suited to the nature of the workers who perform. 1. The beginning of this chapter discusses reasons for and against apologizing for wrongs committed by nation-states. There are many documented cases of companies committing dehumanizing acts. While you read the nation-state focus in this book, think about it from the perspective of businesses and the country of origin (if there is one) of the company. 2. On what does the principled objection to official apologies rest? This is the principled argument that does not depend on contingencies of the situation. This means that people in the present should not apologize for the wrongs committed by the previous generations. 3. Thoroughly explain the doctrine of moral individualism in your own words. “Moral individualism is being responsible only for the actions done by the individual. It does not mean that the person doing this is selfish. It means that the person will only have to apologize for the wrongs he/she has done. However, if I promised to take responsibility for what other people did, then I should do what I promised.” 4. According to John Locke, on what must legitimate government be based? Why? “Legitimate government should be based on consent according to Locke. This is because we are free and independent individuals and not subject to authority or the divine right of the kings. We cannot be subjected to the power of another individual without our consent.” 5. How did Kant understand the “choosing self?” Kant understands choosing self as being free and autonomous which means to be governed by the law I chose for myself. 6. How did Rawls understand the issue of consent as it relates to society being a voluntary arrangement? “Like Kant, Rawls observed that the choices we make often reflect morally arbitrary contingencies. Someone’s choice to work in a sweatshop, for example, might reflect dire economic necessity, not free choice in any meaningful sense. So if we want society to be a voluntary arrangement, we can’t base it on actual consent.” 7.What do Kant’s idea of an autonomous will and Rawls’ idea of a hypothetical agreement behind a veil of ignorance have in common? “Kant’s idea of an autonomous will and Rawls’s idea of a hypothetical agreement behind a veil of ignorance have this in common: both conceive the moral agent as independent of his or her particular aims and attachments. When we will the moral law (Kant) or choose the principles of justice (Rawls), we do so without reference to the roles and identities that situate us in the world and make us the particular people we are.” 8. For Aristotle, what was the purpose of politics? For Aristotle, the purpose of politics is “not only to ease economic exchange and provide for the common defense; it is also to cultivate good character and form good citizens.” 9. For Aristotle, what are arguments about justice really about? “Arguments about justice for Aristotle are arguments about the good life. ‘Before we can [investigate] the nature of an ideal constitution,” Aristotle wrote, “it is necessary for us first to determine the nature of the most desirable way of life. As long as that is obscure, the nature of the ideal constitution must also remain obscure.’” 10. A method that is teleological is one that is oriented toward a particular end. If a teleological method is theological—then God is the ultimate end—seeing the face of God at one’s death, being Christian during one’s life, etc. We also have more proximate ends that we strive for. In this context we are trying to figure out what the “end” is that our whole being is oriented toward. A utilitarian is oriented wholly toward happiness. Someone might choose money, power or influence as their ultimate end. You can often see what one’s end is by looking at the focus of their time and their striving. Teleology refers to the “telos” (Greek word for end) that one is striving for. 11. Why do Kant and Rawls reject Aristotle’s teleology? “Kant and Rawls reject Aristotle’s teleology because it doesn’t seem to leave us room to choose our good for ourselves. They are inclined to see justice as a matter of choice, not fit.” 12. How does Sandel see modern liberal political thought weighing in on these matters? “The notion that justice should be neutral toward conceptions of the good life reflects a conception of persons as freely choosing selves, unbound by prior moral ties. These ideas, taken together, are characteristic of modern liberal political thought according to Sandel.” 13. What do egalitarian liberals favor and why? “Egalitarian liberals favor civil liberties and basic social and economic rights— rights to health care, education, employment, income security, and so on. They argue that enabling individuals to pursue their own ends requires that government ensure the material conditions of truly free choice.” 14. About what do libertarians disagree with egalitarians? “For their part, libertarians (usually called conservatives in contemporary politics, at least on economic issues) also argue for a neutral state that respects individual choice. But they disagree with egalitarian liberals about what policies these ideals require.” 15. What is the appeal of egalitarian or libertarian theories of justice? “Whether egalitarian or libertarian, theories of justice that aspire to neutrality have a powerful appeal. They offer hope that politics and law can avoid becoming entangled in the moral and religious controversies that abound in pluralist societies. And they express a heady conception of human freedom that casts us as the authors of the only moral obligations that constrain us. Despite its appeal, however, this vision of freedom is flawed. So is the aspiration to find principles of justice that are neutral among competing conceptions of the good life.” 16. Why does Sandel believe that the weaknesses of the liberal conception of freedom are bound up with its appeal? “If we understand ourselves as free and independent selves, unbound by moral ties we haven’t chosen, we can’t make sense of a range of moral and political obligations that we commonly recognize, even prize. These include obligations of solidarity and loyalty, historic memory and religious faith— moral claims that arise from the communities and traditions that shape our identity. Unless we think of ourselves as encumbered selves, open to moral claims we have not willed, it is difficult to make sense of these aspects of our moral and political experience.” 17. Explain MacIntyre’s “narrative conception” in your own words. How does narrative influence our answer to the question, What am I to do? The narrative conception of MacIntyre just says that people naturally tells stories. Knowing the story of my life or story I want to be part of will help me know what I am to do. For example, if I want to be part of the story of the movies, then I would want to be a director, actor, or any other position related to making movies. 18. For MacIntyre, what is moral deliberation about? “Moral deliberation is more about interpreting my life story than exerting my will. It involves choice, but the choice issues from the interpretation; it is not a sovereign act of will.” 19. For MacIntyre and Aristotle, the narrative or teleological aspect of moral reflection is bound up with what? What does this mean? “For MacIntyre (as for Aristotle), the narrative, or teleological, aspect of moral reflection is bound up with membership and belonging. That means that both Aristotle and MacIntyre belives in the purpose and if we find our purpose in life or the story we want to belong, then our life will have more meaning and we can have direction on what to do.” 20. According to the liberal conception of justice, what do we owe people? “On the liberal conception, obligations can arise in only two ways— as natural duties we owe to human beings as such and as voluntary obligations we incur by consent. Natural duties are universal. We owe them to persons as persons, as rational beings. They include the duty to treat persons with respect, to do justice, to avoid cruelty, and so on.” 21. What does the narrative conception think about the liberal conception of justice? “From the standpoint of the narrative conception of the person, the liberal account of obligation is too thin. It fails to account for the special responsibilities we have to one another as fellow citizens. More than this, it fails to capture those loyalties and responsibilities whose moral force consists partly in the fact that living by them is inseparable from understanding ourselves as the particular persons we are— as members of this family or nation or people; as bearers of that history; as citizens of this republic.” 22. What are obligations of solidarity or membership? Unlike natural duties, obligations of solidarity are particular, not universal; they involve moral responsibilities we owe, not to rational beings as such, but to those with whom we share a certain history. But unlike voluntary obligations, they do not depend on an act of consent. Their moral weight derives instead from the situated aspect of moral reflection, from a recognition that my life story is implicated in the stories of others. 23. What point is Sandel making with the family, pilot, Ethiopian Jews, immigration and “Buy American” examples? Do you agree—why or why not? Sandel is making the point that there are instances that consent is there and times when consent is not there but we still do what we do because we feel we are obligated. For the pilot, he has a special connection to the village so he doesn’t want to bomb it. The saving of Ethiopian Jews by Israel and not other Ethiopians also shows special connection of Jews to these people. Similarly, “Buy American” is almost the same as it encourages people to love their own products rather than buy products abroad since the benefits will go back to them through good economy. I agree with these things. If I were in the same situations, I would do the same. There are personal connections that are important to us and we will favor the people close to us or our own country first because they are special to us. 24. In the two examples of the brothers taking different approaches to turning their wayward brothers in, what do you think is at stake? What are the underlying values and how do you decide what they should have done? Maybe the stake is the brotherhood. William Bulger refused everyone to help find his brother because he is special to him and he thinks protecting him means not being responsible on putting him in prison. The good thing is that he did not obstruct the investigation. Like the pilot, he knew that other people would find his brother anyway but he doesn’t want to be that person responsible in putting his brother to jail. For the Unabomber, the brother helped FBI find his brother. I think it is also because they are not that close since he has not seen his brother for a decade. It also seems like the brother has some mental problems already that he needs to be caught and get help for his problem. I think both of them can be right. They are not obligated to help in finding their bother because it is not their job. If they help, there is also nothing wrong with that. 25. Why does Aristotle find the conceptions of justice considered previously problematic? This way of thinking about justice is at odds with Aristotle’s way. He doesn’t believe that principles of justice can or should be neutral with respect to the good life. To the contrary, he maintains that one of the purposes of a just constitution is to form good citizens and to cultivate good character. He doesn’t think it’s possible to deliberate about justice without deliberating about the meaning of the goods— the offices, honors, rights, and opportunities— that societies allocate. Sandel Chapter 10 Reading Guide 1. Why would Obama disagree with Kennedy’s response about the role of his religion in his decision-making as president? He would disagree because Obama said that It was a mistake, he thought, for progressives to “abandon the field of religious discourse” in politics. This means that he does not want to leave the topic of religion in this discourse especially in being a president. He believes this will be the basis of personal morality. 2. Why does Rawls argue for “liberal neutrality” in the public sphere? He thinks that the case for liberal neutrality arises from the need for tolerance in the face of moral and religious disagreement. “Which moral judgments are true, all things considered, is not a matter for political liberalism,” Rawls writes. 3. What two reasons does Sandel give for seeing the attempt to detach arguments about justice and rights from arguments about the good life as mistaken? First, justice often has an honorific aspect. Second, the idea that merit arises only once social institutions define their mission is subject to a complication: the social institutions that figure most prominently in debates about justice— schools, universities, occupations, professions, public offices— are not free to define their mission just any way they please. 4. What is the point Sandel is making in the abortion and stem cell research examples? He is pointing that creating laws allowing abortion and stem cell research shows moral and religious controversies and that politics is different from religious views and that these laws already answers that embryo and fetus are still not considered living life people who are already born. 5. What is the point Sandel is making with the same-sex marriage case? The controversy in same-sex marriage cannot be avoided because it also creates moral and religious controversies. If the telos or purpose of marriage will be considered, it should not be. But when giving people freedom and respect them of their choice, then it should be permitted. 6. According to Sandel, what are the weakness of the welfare and freedom arguments for justice? The utilitarian approach has two defects: First, it makes justice and rights a matter of calculation, not principle. Second, by trying to translate all human goods into a single, uniform measure of value, it flattens them, and takes no account of the qualitative differences among them. The freedom-based theories solve the first problem but not the second. They take rights seriously and insist that justice is more than mere calculation. Although they disagree among themselves about which rights should outweigh utilitarian considerations, they agree that certain rights are fundamental and must be respected. 7.Why does he choose virtue? Because he believes that to achieve a just society we have to reason together about the meaning of the good life, and to create a public culture hospitable to the disagreements that will inevitably arise.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

HI! Please s...


Anonymous
Very useful material for studying!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags