if Sandel is advocating an equality of respect, then perhaps he is most comparable to Anderon's democratic equality

This is something that should be genuinely considered if the desire is to create a greater sense of community

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.

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

obivously, if this is the case, then heterosexual couples where one partner is infertile would be illegal.

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.

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".

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.

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.

Is there really this preponderance among mankind? Did the polytheists of the ancient times not think the same? The monarchs who claimed divine right, the autocratic oppressors, the leaders of coup d'etaits. In their mind, each of these people thought that what they were doing was right. I may still agree with Mill, but it might be presumptuous.

This makes me think that utility is not solely theoretical, but that there is an element of practicality involved here. Undoubtedly, people seek to be happy. Rarely do they find a level of happiness they are comfortable with, but they do achieve a level where can avoid things that would prevent them from being unhappy.

In theme with what was written about Bentham earlier, this appears to be some sort of proof that utilitarianism hardlly thinks of the individual. Mill is basically saying that whether or not you feel as if there are two levels of pleasure, there most absolutely are.

interesting. I think this is certainly an individualist way of looking at it, looking at each member of the community as a free-thinking organism. I don't think Marx or communitarians would necessarily agree.

I have to disagree. I'm not sure, but Bentham could be looking at this from two ways. 1) That a person can judge herself and whether her actions are grounds for punishment. 2) A person knows what brings them pleasure and displeasure. The first is blatantly disputable; regardless of whether an action may not be grounds for punishment, there is a reason we have courts of law to determine these things. The second is a valid point of discussion, and I would argue that people's views can become distorted to a point that they don't actually know what brings them pleasure.