Library Reference: N/A

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1

Quote:  “distinguish between those aspects of the social system that define and secure the equal liberties of citizenship”

What I expect to learn:

    I expect to learn more about justice in this chapter.

Book Review:

    ”In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to reconcile liberty and equality in a principled way, offering an account of "justice as fairness." Central to this effort is his famous approach to the seemingly intractable problem of distributive justice.

Rawls appeals to the social contract. What principles of justice would we agree to if we desired to cooperate with others, but would also prefer more of the benefits, and less of the burdens, associated with cooperation? Justice as fairness is thus offered to people who are neither saintly altruists nor greedy egoists. Human beings are, as Rawls puts it, both rational and reasonable. Because we are rational we have ends we want to achieve, but we are reasonable insofar as we are happy to achieve these ends together if we can, in accord with mutually acceptable regulative principles. But given how different our needs and aspirations often are, how can we find principles that are acceptable to each of us? Rawls gives us a model of a fair situation for making this choice (his argument from the original position and the famous veil of ignorance), and he argues that two principles of justice would be especially attractive.” (Wikipedia. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/John_Rawls#A_Theory_of_Justice)

This principle ensures that with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life chances, and those inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged. I think that this kind of priority is cannot be sacrificed because it makes the inequalities gone. The first principle allows people to do whatever they want because we have equal rights and liberties. For me people can do whatever they want for, as they don’t hurt other people. I think pornography is some kind of hurting other people.

What I learned:

    I’ve learned that justice is made really to make us safe not only for those people in the government.

Review Question:

1.    Carefully explain Rawls’s conception of the original position.

•    Original position is giving and doing

2.    State and explain Rawls’s first principle of justice

•    Rawls’s first principle of justice states that everyone must have equal claims on right and liberties.

3.    State and explain the second principle. Which principle has priority such that it cannot be sacrificed?

•    This principle ensures that with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life chances, and those inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged. I think that this kind of priority is cannot be sacrificed because it makes the inequalities gone.

Discussion Question:

1.    On the first principle, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty as long as this does not interfere with a similar liberty for other. What does this allow people to do? Does it mean, for examples, that people have a right to engage in homosexual activities as long as they don’t interfere with others? Can people produce and view pornography if it does not restrict anyone’s freedom? Are people allowed to take drugs in the privacy of their homes?

•    The first principle allows people to do whatever they want because we have equal rights and liberties. For me people can do whatever they want for, as they don’t hurt other people. I think pornography is some kind of hurting other people. I think taking drugs is a kind of hurting not the others but yourself and it is bad for me.

2.    Is it possible for free and rational persons in the original position to agree upon different principles than those given by Rawls? For example, why wouldn’t they agree to an equal distribution of wealth and income rather than an unequal distribution? That is, why wouldn’t they adopt socialism rather than capitalism? Isn’t socialism just as rational as capitalism?

•    Yes, I think even rational people can agree with different principles by Rawls. If they don’t agree with equal distribution of the wealth because not all the people is doing their job to earn. They don’t want to apply socialism because they don’t want to level their status with other people and s o that they can have a more wealthy and prosperous life than others. I think the two are almost the same.

Integrative Questions:

1.    What is capitalism?

2.    What is rational person doing in this world?

3.    Why do we need to have equality?

4.    Do equality promote goodness or not?

5.    When does equality should apply?