User talk:Neiwai
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Three questions Answer one from section A one from section B one from section C
A. Brighouse, Barry B. Singer C. Chatterjee
2 hours, answer: 3 questions
some choices perhaps from 6 choices.
PART ONE
"The theory of distributive justice in the general sense", RAWLS, KYMLICKA, BARRY
Questions: "What exactly is the problem with distributive justice"? NOZICK says disjus is treating. The real thing is Entitlement.
DistJust is to find out what is the best way to allot. Who should get what and why.
Compare KYMLICKA with RAWLS:
KYMLICKA talks of community ties within a domestic society. What does BRIGHOUSE identify as KYMLICKA's main problem?
KYMLICKA is anti-utilitarian because util fails to take into account the separateness of human beings.
RAWLS aoso said "humans as end"
"Social primary good"
KYMLICKA: "cultural membership" because minority have disadvantage accessing cultural good enjoyed by the mainstream
Assimilation vs. integration.
KYMLICKA is also against benign neglect, why?
SEN: economic freedom leads to political freedom. markets! Something appealing in market, but it should be restricted.
NOZICK's is a backward-looking theory: NOZICK: the end is the individualist human being. He is a strict Kantian. In order to do that, you must be on a voluntary basis: consent.
BEITZ and SINGER on intervention.
"Public health approach"---BARRY?
FRIEDMAN is also important.
1) Distributive Justice (BRIGHOUSE, BARRY, SEN)
2) International distributive justice （CHATTERJEE, SEN, BARRY, SINGER)
that makes 40 minutes per question.
The questions are comparative.
Evaluate and defend a position by appealing to what someone says. Also your own judgment:
"how to organize a society according to...";
"what is Rawl's original position?";
"What are the inconsistencies of Rawls?";
"capacity for a sense of justice and capacity for...";
"what is weak about this view and what does he say to the critics?";
"what's the anti-Rawlsian view of Nozick?"---this is called "comparative logic"
KYMLICKA: "is there a need to defend group rights based on liberalism?"
You compare BRIGHTHOUSE with BARRY.
BARRY: focus on central concets---> 1) merit attaked, meritocracy attacked; 2) responsibility---"collective vs. individual", "choices vs. circumstances" 3) Barry's "equal opportunity": why isn't it taken seriously enough? "Equal opportunity for what?" 4) Barry's "education, health" 5) Barry's scope
PART TWO
SINGER: What does international justice require?
what are singer's 4 solutions?
What is Singer trying to answer? Topics: 1.Climate Change... But what does it have to do with distributive justice?
World Trade: "do you agree with singer's view of what the WTO is?" Particular cases?
What are the implications of Singer's ...
Humanitarian interventions: what justifies UN interventions?
when can sovereignty be abrogated?
when is intervention justified? when is this criterion met?
Aid: extreme poverty in the last chapter by SINGER
We talk about ethics of distance in SINGER.
Law of peoples.
Human Rights.
PART THREE
MILLER, POGGE AND O'NEIL are important in CHATTERJEE
MILLER MILLER: how much should we hold nations responsible?
does collective responsibility make sense?
is international justice "inter-state"?
SHUE O'NEIL POGGE:
What caused continued poverty?
O'NEIL plays down responsibility.
POGGE plays up responsibility.
BEITZ is a very good one to look at.
NUSSBAUM disagrees with Rawls, she's important.
What did you learn from this course?
Charles' review on Journal: "Global Liberalism, POlitical or Comprehensive" UT Law Journal
Exam: Brighouse: "RAWLS, SEN, NOZICK, FRIEDMAN, KYMLICKA"
On Group Rights, KYMLICKA is Rawlsian.
Barry: Equality: individual responsibility, merit, social responsibility
Singer: Atmosphere, WTO, economy, law, community.
CHATTERJEE: distance, community, special obligations, global responsibility, human rights, law of peoples of Rawls, obligation vs. responsibility
