Analysis Of Sandel's Debates

Philosophical thought provides the infrastructure that allows society to author moral laws. While morality may be the aim, other variables can cause these laws to become corrupt. The urge for power is one of many, recurring, variables that infect morality. During these times of ‘infection,’ society must contest those who oppose just laws. In order to shine a light on unjust laws, laws are bound to be broken. It is not only lawful to break unjust laws, but the duty of the people to speak up and be a voice for change. It is critical, during these times, to work towards equilibrium with the goal to change the law. Regardless of the circumstances, it is lawful to break unjust laws with the goal to make them just again.

In his Article, “The Range of Justice”, Gerald Gaus Explains that there will likely never be one vision of a “just society” Due to this, Gaus concludes that instead individuals have the responsibility to learn tolerance towards others whose views may be different than their own. This “moral maturity” is essential to understanding that we live in a diverse society that will likely never come to share a single conception of what is best for society as a whole, and to understand that they may be forced to live under policies and/or practices with which they may not agree.

John Rawls wrote several highly influential articles in the 19950`s and 1960`s, his first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), revitalized the social-contract tradition, using it to articulate and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In Political Liberalism [PL] (1993), he recast the role of political philosophy, accommodating it to the effectively permanent “reasonable pluralism” of religious, philosophical, and other comprehensive doctrines or worldviews that characterize modern societies. He explains how philosophers can characterize public justification and the legitimate, democratic use of collective coercive power while accepting that pluralism. (Richardson)

Today, it is safe to say that many of United Sates citizens are unsure about the future of our country. In Our Declaration, Danielle Allen claims that the future of our country is secured by citizens who play their part in the system. She writes, “Politics is an activity where people, thanks to their wakefulness, can organize themselves and set up institutions so that they can all collectively protect themselves without having to fight with each other” (Allen 176). She has confidence that citizens can diagnose the current state of our country and the political world through interaction with other each other to build unified intelligence through democratic conversation. Democratic conversation occurs when citizens cooperatively and intelligently discuss and provide their views on certain matters which determine the present and future state of our country. “For the Declaration we are all equal in having the capacity to judge relations among facts, principles, and courses of action” (Allen 91). But is Allen’s claim realistic? Allen is partially justified because our country is more tolerant today than it ever has been when it comes to sexuality and marriage, and gender. However, Allen’s optimism is not entirely realistic because of the common stubborn citizens, and the uneducated citizens not willing to take part in democratic conversations.

Gonzalo states, “The older you are, the younger you get when you move to the United States”. I do agree with that idea for many immigrants. However, for those of us who can prepare to face the challenge, the age should not matter when we move to the United States. It is up to us to learn a new language and advance or remain at the same level as we are right now. Thus, people must learn the language to have more opportunity to get a better job and achieve the desired result. Also, it provides a good example for their kids to follow. So, don’t be lazy and start changing things in your life right away. Learn the language and you will see that age does not matter.

Sheehy, Paul. "Doing the Right Thing (Part II): Challenges to Utilitarianism." The Richmond Journal of Philosophy. Richmond Journal, Mar. 2008.

Although both of these cards-up perspectives — the libertarian and utilitarian — have initial plausibility, their difficulties prompt me to consider the second moral perspective that Green describes. This is the cards-down perspective and is identical with the veil of ignorance described by John Rawls, Ronald Green’s teacher. Both the tyranny of the minority and the tyranny of the majority can be avoided if people can choose a policy unanimously with the

John Stuart Mill expresses the idea of representation in our society and that the government strives for the improvement of the moral capacities of all its’ citizens. Iris Marion Young is an inclusive democrat, who argues that not all groups in our society are represented equally by the government. Jean-Jacques Rousseau explains how man’s evolution in society has caused social inequality in our society. Dr. Martin Luther King

John Stuart Mill introduces his assessment of Utilitarianism by stating how a standardized system in which people’s actions may be judged to differentiate between right and wrong has been minimal in progress. He expresses the misconception with the way utility is understood by the general populous and other philosophers. The struggle to lay the foundations in what constitutes as right and wrong dates longer back than 2000 years ago.

Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original

ABSTRACT. Adapting the traditional social contract approach of earlier years to a more contemporary use, John Rawls initiated an unparaleled revitalization of social philosophy. Instead of arguing for the justification of civil authority or the form that it should take, Professor Rawls is more interested in the principles that actuate basic social institutions —he presupposes authority and instead focuses on its animation. In short, Rawls argues that “justice as fairness” should be that basic animating principle.

Describe in detail the role that the ideas of “overlapping consensus” and “comprehensive doctrine” play in Rawl’s theoretical answer to the fundamental question of Political Liberalism: “How is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines?” (Rawls 4). More specifically, how do these concepts help to preserve the traditional liberal values of freedom and equality? And do these concepts help to preserve stability within a pluralistic society?

When it comes to obesity, society is quick to judge. People make comments about how obese persons can’t get their food portions in control. Additional remarks being discussed are of the types of foods people choose and their lack of exercise. Others may believe that a person’s obesity is related to their genetics. Little is known, to society at large, about binge-eating, obesity, and the possibilities of such being influenced by mental illness.

By neglecting certain facts about particular societies, communitarian theorists have argued that Rawls' theory of justice provides an inadequate conception of the individual in the original position. Some critics have taken more specific aim and argue that A Theory of Justice privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals while inadequately accounting for communal interests. Michael Sandel in his work Liberalism and the Limits of Justice advances this criticism of Rawls. Sandel contends that by separating a person's ends from her identity, Rawls cannot allow for any ends to be constitutive of an individual and hence communal. Because individuals are not attached to their ends, they cannot but choose the principles of justice based on self-interest.

The movie, The Great Debaters, takes place in the 1930s and explores the struggles of three students from Wiley College’s debate team. The first character introduced is the youngest student from the team, 14 year old, James Farmer Jr. He is an ambitious young man who strives to live up to his father’s expectations. James struggles with fear throughout the movie. He is sheltered and does not understand the severity of the racial conflict of the time. This trait is evident in the film in two key scenes. The first is when his family is out for a drive and his father accidently hits a white man’s pig. James’s father is very cautious during this interaction and James witnesses the incident from the car. This interaction has a major impact on James and gives him a greater understanding of the racial conflict. The second incident occurs when James is unsuccessful in his first debate. When given other opportunities to debate, he questions himself and fears failure. This fear plays a role in the debate team’s future competitions.