Exam II

docx

School

University of Nebraska, Lincoln *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

106

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by JusticeStork2468

Suggestions on the answers in the final exam I. On the first question “Are there measures that should be taken to reduce income and/or wealth inequality in this country? If you think so, please explain what those measures should be and why they ought to be taken. If the answer is no, explain why no such measures are needed or a good idea to implement.” 1. One way to argue for a “yes” answer is to go Rawlsian. The paper can use Rawls’s Difference Principle as its normative principle: economic inequalities are to be arranged to provide the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society, without violating anyone’s basic liberties and fair opportunities. Then the paper can propose some measures that are permitted by the Difference Principle. As for defense of the principle, I have summarized Rawls’s argument in my Rawls & Nozick handout, which goes like this: P1) The correct principles of distributive justice are those that would be chosen in the original position, in which everyone negotiates from an impartial perspective. P2) In the original condition, we would make our choices according to the maximin principle, which tells us to choose the best of the worst-case scenarios. P3) Choosing the best of the worst-case scenarios will lead us to the difference principle, which prioritizes the people who are living in the worst condition compared to that of the others. C) Therefore, the difference principle is one of the correct principles of distributive justice. A watered-down version of Rawls’s argument is something like this: If we are to decide which principles a society should be governed by, when we don’t know how well we will do in this society, we will reasonably choose the principle that makes the worst scenario least damaging for us. And the Difference Principle is just such a principle. For the background of the argument, see the same handout. 2. Another way to argue for a “yes” answer is to go Utilitarian. The overall argument for such a paper could be something like this: P1) If a social problem will do great harm (and bring little benefit) to a society, some measures should be taken to deal with it. (Normative principle) P2) Wealth / income inequality is a problem that will do great harm to a society. C) Some measures should be taken to reduce wealth / income inequality. Then in the empirical section, the paper should use empirical evidence to back up P2. The normative principle can be defended by deriving it from the basic principle of utilitarianism: Actions and policies are morally justified if and only if they bring overall benefits or reduce overall harm. 1

3. One way to argue for a “no” answer is to go Nozickean. The overall argument for such a paper could be something like this: P1) No one’s basic human rights should be violated. (Normative principle) P2) The right to one’s property is a basic human right, as long as the property is possessed legitimately. P3) Any policy that involves redistribution of income or wealth is a violation of people’s right to their property. C) No policy that involves redistribution of income or wealth should be implemented. The paper can further explain how property is possessed legitimately, using Nozick’s definition of the justice in holdings. See the handout mentioned above. The normative principle can be defended by elaborating a good reason for having human rights, from a Kantian perspective. For Nozick, a good reason for having human rights is that human beings are not merely tools, they therefore shouldn’t be treated like tools, and the moral constraints on the treatment of human beings are summarized in the requirements of basic human rights. See my first handout on Nozick. II. On the second question “Are there measures that should be taken to reduce the influence of money on politics and the ways in which that influence interacts with inequalities of wealth and income to give people differential influence over the laws and administration of the laws? If so, please explain what those measures should be and why they ought to be taken. If the answer is no, explain why no such measures are needed or a good idea to implement.” 1. One way to argue for a “yes” answer is to argue that the influence of big money in politics will harm some central principles of a democratic society, the principles by which democracy is justified. Some of these principles, according to different understandings of democracy, can be found in section 2 (“The Justification of Democracy”) of the entry “Democracy” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#JustDemo Take one of the justifications of Democracy, e.g., justification based on public equality. “Public equality is a principle of equality which ensures that people can see that they are being treated as equals.” One of the things this principle requires is that “people’s interests ought to be equally advanced, or at least that they ought to have equal opportunities to advance them.” An argument for a “yes” answer to Q2 can go like this: P1) We must protect democracy. (Normative principle) P2) Democracy is based on the principle of public equality, which ensures that people can see that they are being treated as equals. P3) This principle requires that people’s interests should be equally advanced. 2

P4) Big money in politics will primarily advance the interests of big donors. P5) So big money harms the principle of public equality, the basis of democracy. C) Therefore, in order to protect democracy, we must limit the influence of big money. For the defense of the normative principle, don’t use the same principle in P2 to support P1, that would be a circular argument. Find some other reasons in the SEP entry or in your own experience to argue for the idea that democracy is a way of life that deserves our defense. 2. One way to argue for a “no” answer is just to follow the reasoning of the majority opinion in the case of Citizens United vs FEC, which goes roughly like this: The First Amendment forbids the government from restricting free speech; campaign finance is form of free speech; so government should not set limit on campaign finance. For more information, read the opinions for this case here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/#tab-opinion-1963050 3

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exam II

Related Documents