- Jul 2016
-
app.box.com app.box.com
-
A more robust public engagement with our moral disagreements could provide a stronger, not a weaker, basis for mutual respec
if Sandel is advocating an equality of respect, then perhaps he is most comparable to Anderon's democratic equality
-
more ambitious proposals for mandatory national service have not found their way onto the political agen
This is something that should be genuinely considered if the desire is to create a greater sense of community
-
for a public life of larger purpose and articulated a politics of moral and spiritual aspiratio
I'm not sure that Sandel has successfully argued that this is what Americans are seeking by supporting these movements. It's possible, but it's not clear.
-
. In order to decide who should qualify for marriage, we have to think through the purpose of marriage and the virtues it honors. An
this would support the argument that marriage between two partners, regardless of whether or not they are of the same sex, is better because of the values it promotes rather than the technicals of who is getting married
-
Many opponents of same-sex marriage claim that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. According to this argument, since same-sex couples are unable to procreate on their own, they don’t have a right to marry. They lack, so to speak, the relevant virtue.
obivously, if this is the case, then heterosexual couples where one partner is infertile would be illegal.
-
- Jun 2016
-
-
They forego the idea of maximizing a weighted mean and regard the difference principle as a fair basis for regulating the basic structure.
The only way that Rawls could reasonably expect this to happen, I believe, is dependent on the advantaged class understanding that their advantage is not their own. This may be difficult, especially for those individuals who began in the disadvantaged group and managed to work their way into the advantaged group.
-
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 circumstance
This may be another way of referring to the culture or environment that one grows up in. It isn't really possible to achieve an equality in this area, especially because that would have a negative impact on diversity. This might explain why Rawls would advocate "fairness" as a solution for these differences, rather than "sameness".
-
Utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons
This is an interesting lens through which to examine this debate. I don't think "individualist" is the first characteristic that people would think of when it comes to Rawls' principles of justice and the veil of ignorance, but Rawls has offered a valid argument for why it empowers the individual more than compared to utilitarianism.
-
There is no reason to think that Aristotle would disagree with this
I think this is an important distinction that Rawls makes. There is no doubt that he makes a hefty assumption when stating that entitlements are derived from social institutions and can therefore be regulated to some extent. Regardless of whether or not I agree with it, there are surely some who do not and would dispute it serving as the premise.
-