Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates
Please answer one of these prompts and define which one you chose in the paper or via messages.
7. If all people have dignity and infinite worth, then how do we make choices about life and death? Suppose we must choose between repairing a road in Hartford and vaccinating children in Toledo. If we repair the road, we can expect that ten fewer children will die in car accidents in Hartford. If we vaccinate, we can expect that twenty children will be saved in Toledo. If everyone has infinite worth, how do we choose? (How might different views address this?)
8. According to Kant, morality is connected to freedom. But for Kant, freedom is not just doing whatever you want. It’s living by your own reason. Brainwashing, advertising, cravings, and desires—all of these make you unfree. Is Kant right about freedom? Isn’t freedom just the ability to do what you want, when you want? What difference does it make that some of your desires are implanted in you through advertising?
Or does Kant have a point? Is it possible to be unfree even if no one holds you back? Is it possible to be a slave to your impulses, cravings, or desires? Isn’t it liberating to learn how to control your impulses and desires?
9. Should wealthy people be allowed to leave great sums of money to their children? Or does inherited wealth render our society unjust?
10. Children from wealthy families often have sizeable advantages over the rest of us. Their parents can afford to send them to the best schools, or pay for private tutoring, or otherwise enrich their education. What if such lessons give them a huge, unearned advantage in the race for jobs, careers, and wealth? Is it just for poor children to have much lower prospects as a result?
11. If a contract is entered into voluntarily (by both parties to it), does that automatically make it just? If an arrangement is forced on you without your consent, does that automatically make it unjust?
12. Rawls argues for his two principles of justice by claiming that they would be chosen by parties in the so-called ‘original position’, from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’. Do you agree that parties in the original position would choose Rawls’ two principles over competing (utilitarian or libertarian) principles? If so, is that enough to make them just?
13. Rawls’s difference principle has the effect of constraining economic inequality: differences in wealth must benefit everyone, or else they are unjust. In a capitalist economy like ours, that principle would require constant redistribution of wealth, from rich people to poor people. But libertarians like Nozick think redistributive taxation violates people’s rights. So, who is right here? Is the difference principle unjust?