1. To what extent do you feel that as a country and a people we should take care of our less fortunate and “needy” members, and why? How should this be done—through private donations, government support, or both? If private donations are not sufficient, should we through government taxation ensure that these people are cared for? Why or why not? Discuss how Rawls and Locke would answer this question. Make sure to explain their positions/arguments and to integrate them into your analysis. The Rawls and Nozick component should be a major component of the paper.
2. Why does Rawls choose the device of a veil of ignorance? What is its purpose? What is the level of ignorance of the parties in the original position? In the original position, behind the veil of ignorance, would you choose the principles that Rawls claims rational choosers would choose? Explain your answer. Consider, also, the following criticism of Rawls:
Libertarians like Nozick disagree with Rawls about what justice requires. But they also disagree with Rawls about what should count as a fair bargaining situation for choosing principles of justice. From their point of view, the “veil of ignorance” is attractive to Rawls precisely because it sets the stage for his egalitarian principles of justice. The intuition that leads Rawls to propose the veil is that the outcome of the social lottery (what social position we happen to have been born to) and the outcome of the natural lottery (what talents and character traits we happen to have been born with) are both “morally arbitrary.” We don’t deserve these things, Rawls says; they are gifts. So it makes sense to him to try to imagine a bargaining process that would prevent people from turning these things to their advantage.
The libertarians criticize this line of thought for assuming what needs to be proved (a strong presumption of moral equality). They say that the characteristics Rawls wants to exclude from the bargaining process are not morally arbitrary, they make up an important part of who we are. They think that a bargain struck between real people, who know all the things that Rawls wants his bargainers not to know, is fair as long as no one is in a position to coerce anyone else. So they reject Rawls claim that the veil of ignorance provides a reasonable constraint on the choice of principles of justice. They say that Rawls is skewing the social contract towards egalitarianism (a principle calling for equal outcomes) by imagining that the choice is made “behind the veil.”
What do you think about this criticism of Rawls? Do you think that the “veil of ignorance’ would make the choice of principles fair? Or would it be better to imagine that the principles were being chosen by people who were not ignorant in the ways Rawls specifies? What principles do you think you would choose if you knew what the veil is supposed to keep you from knowing?
3. Imagine as best you can, that you are in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance. Suppose that you are sitting down to choose the fundamental social rules that will govern your life and the lives of your children and so on.
Are you inclined to choose the rules included in the “entitlement theory of justice” advocated by Robert Nozick? (Remember that for Nozick the fundamental rules require each of us to refrain from violating the persons or property of others — and that’s all. There are no requirements for the well-off to assist the needy and no public provision for anything but enforcement of the criminal law. On Nozick’s view, to require some of us to pay taxes to provide services and opportunities to others is a form of slavery.)
Or are you more inclined to choose Rawls’ principles of justice? (Remember that, although Rawls agrees with Nozick about the overriding importance of liberty, he also includes a second principle that requires that any inequalities of wealth, power, etc. be arranged to benefit those who are least well off and be attached to positions that are open to all. Rawls interprets these requirements quite strongly, so that any society which would satisfy his principles would have to have — at least — a very substantial “social safety net” to prevent anyone from falling into poverty, strict rules against discrimination, and significant public provision of education and training, so that people would have genuinely equal opportunities to ‘move up’.)
Try to explain why your choice is the better one. Consider the arguments offered by Nozick and Rawls and Walzer as you try to make and justify your choice.
Free Will topics
4. What is the position of libertarianism? Describe libertarianism in terms of the Chisholm reading (this is the position he argues for) and contrast it with compatibilism. Defend whether you agree or disagree with libertarianism. If you agree with the view, consider an objection to libertarianism and respond to the objection on the behalf of libertarianism. If you disagree with libertarianism, explain your objection in detail, and then present a possible reply on behalf of libertarianism to your objection. (Note: Chisholm explains one important objection to his view that he calls the 2nd objection; the Kane essay also deals with many important objections to Libertarianism having to do with that position’s attempts to avoid making free will arbitrary, accidental or a matter of luck: what Kane describes as the descent problem for libertarianism).
5. Describe and defend your position on the free will issue. Compare it to a similar position found in one of our readings. Then contrast it to one of our readings (one that is in opposition to your view). Why is your view better than this one? Present and reply to an objection one might present against your position. Your argument should be a philosophical argument (i.e. it should not rely on religious premises/assumptions). To answer this question well, you need to do more than just state your view; you need to provide an actual argument for it. Also, to answer this question well, you need to do more than merely mention 2 other positions you compare and contrast with your view; you need to explain and evaluate them in detail.
Knowledge topics
6. What caused Descartes to begin the process of doubting everything? Explain the objective behind his method of doubt and what the method of doubt involves. Explain the Dream Argument and the role it plays in Descartes’ objective. Evaluate the Dream Argument, defending whether you think it is a good argument or not. Explain whether Descartes thinks we can know anything with certainty.
7. Compare and contrast Empiricism and Rationalism as theories of knowledge. Defend which one you think is the better view of knowledge.
Meaningful Lives
8. Do you think life is meaningful? Argue for your answer to this question. Incorporate by explaining and evaluating Taylor and Wolf’s analysis of this issue.
Evaluation Criteria
The primary criteria for evaluating papers will involve a demonstrated understanding of the arguments/positions relevant to the paper topic, the soundness of arguments for one’s own position regarding the topic and general clarity of expression. That is to say, papers will be graded for philosophical content and writing style. If you have difficulty in expressing your points clearly through writing, I suggest you plan on writing multiple drafts of your essay and that you seriously consider working with the writing center/tutors in order to strengthen your essays.
I use the following scale in distributing grades for assignments. I have also provided explanations for what each level of paper will be like.
A Superior achievement of assignment/course requirements
An A paper will be well organized and extremely clear such that the author’s flow of thought is very easy to follow. One key for this is that there are very few typos and grammatical errors. The thesis, if there is one for the assignment, should be very clear and the essay should be focused on it. There should be no irrelevant digressions or tangents, and the thesis should be well-supported and explained. The views discussed should be captured correctly, and there should be no inconsistencies in the paper’s argument/discussion. An A paper will also show originality/insight and independent thought. It should be an excellent essay that goes well beyond merely satisfying the questions.
B Better than satisfactory achievement of assignment/course requirements
While an A paper is an excellent one, a B paper is a good one. It does a bit more than just satisfying the assignment. It shows that effort has been put into the essay with a clear thesis and generally solid argumentation and explanation of the key issues/points involved in the assignment. However, there could be improvement in content and writing. There may be grammatical errors, though not many, which detract from the flow of the essay. There may be confusion in argumentation or some small point at issue, but the errors will not generally be very substantial.
C Satisfactory achievement of assignment/course requirements A C paper is satisfactory and covers the material of the assignment. It is generally correct and deals with at least one of the relevant issues well enough to be understood and to make its point. Various deficits of a C paper include mistaken arguments and key points as well as unexplained concepts/terms that should be explained. Other deficits may be an unclear thesis, a glaring inconsistency in reasoning, other elements that detract from clarity, or an essay consisting of just descriiption/narrative without any analysis of the material. Often times these essays just mention key points without explaining and evaluating them, or they do so in very brief fashion.
D Less than satisfactory achievement of assignment/course requirements but acceptable for credit
A D paper seems to have a thesis and point, though it is hard to see what, exactly, it is. The essay mentions relevant material, but it is organized and written such that it is a list of unrelated points and thoughts. Key subject matter is omitted or not explained at all.
