Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Note on Two Assignments

One-Page Response due Tuesday April 22

(Note: no class meeting this Thursday April 17)

Content: Please turn in a one-page response paper concerning the public/private distinction as it arises in either Mill’s On Liberty or in Rawls’s Justice as Fairness. Describe the distinction as it figures in one of these texts and then very briefly describe or develop an argument for or against the distinction. Raise a problem—show why it’s good—describe what work it does—or what work it couldn’t do.

Format: I need one page double-spaced. If you want to type more then type up to one page single-spaced, but not longer. Include your name, email, and Student ID.

Clue: In Mill, look to the Harm Principle and to the Other-Regarding/Self-Regarding distinction. In Rawls, look to the idea of the basic structure and the idea of public reason (or public justification) as exemplifying a public sphere separate from the private sphere.

First Writing Assignment due Thursday May 1

Due on Thursday May 1 at the beginning of class and also via email (as Word DOC, PDF, or equivalent) to me at cwkoopman@gmail.com.

This should be a 3-4 page double-space argumentative essay on some topic in the Mill or Rawls reading. You can either defend an aspect of Millian liberalism or Rawlsian liberalism (or both). Or you can argue against either of these liberalisms (or both). An argumentative paper should lay out the view which is under consideration and then focus on advantages or disadvantages of that view. Whether you argue for or against you should definitely raise counter-objections to your thesis that will occur to your reader and respond to these (e.g., if you are attacking Mill, anticipate the Millian reply to your argument, and offer a counter-argument against the potential line of reply).

The best essays will draw on quotations from the Mill or Rawls reading, but do not quote them too extensively. Describe the idea in your words. Do not quote from the lectures but of course feel free to draw on ideas we went over in lecture (but turn the ideas into your own by offering them in your words). The very best essays will in addition draw on secondary literature but this is by no means a requirement and some ‘A’ papers will probably not make use of secondary literature in their paper.

In addition, there should be an extra page or two with an annotated bibliography of secondary materials that you research at the library or online. You must cover three secondary readings: articles in journals, chapters in books, or entire books. Offer full citations of the reading and a short (one paragraph) abstract or concise description of the reading, in your own words. The three secondary articles/chapters/books need to be relevant to the topic of your essay, of course.

If you are having trouble formulating a topic, then please email me or come see me in my office hour.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Taking Rawl's Two Principles of Justice to be worthwhile aims for society, I am curious about their potential and limitation within the confines of the nation-state and capitalism in the age of globalization. I see both the nation-state and capitalism as being completely contradictory to the aims of maximum equal liberty of persons and subsequently fair equality of opportunity and benifit of the least advantages. 1) As a fundamental tenant of the nation state is a stronghold on and competition over wealth and territory, is it possible for a nation state to really give maximize the equal liberty of persons when it must ignore the rights of people in other nations to acheive these ends? 2) As capitalism is a system that relies on there always being economic inequality between persons, can capitalism ever actually promote equal liberty of persons without heralding its own undoing?

Principles of Justice

To contribute, somewhat to the previous post, Rawls also states that within this original position there are two principles of justice. (part II sec.13). He says that in order to apply the second principle the first principle must be present as well as satisfied. Part two of the second principle says that the social and economic inequalities within a society must be "to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members" (43) Do you think it is possible for the inequalities to be to their "greatest benefit"? Doesn't the term inequality imply that it cannot really benefit anyone and if so then does it mean that if we apply the original position to the U.S government that it could potentially account for corruption and/or imbalances? (as mentioned in the previous post).