We established that Rawls idea of social equality may work in a smaller group, but it would be extremely difficult in larger groups. The idea of a veil of invisibility in large societies would most likely not have an overall hapiness. Rawls thought that gifted people should not be rewarded. We explored this concept that maybe this would be fair because being gifted is a matter of luck. Though we also said that gifted people put effort into their endevours in order to be rewarded. Rawls also said that gifted should give back to less fortunate so everyone is rewarded. Even if this reward is enjoyment from the talents of the gifted. Ex. sports, actors, singers.
This design was meant that everyone would be better off in some way. This is more of a mindset that everyone would have to adapt to and hapiness of where you are in life.
Im in section 13 group 3. but i was wondering if Rawls philosophy only works in the an established government setting. Such as if this were in a time of anarchy i dont think its the same as if it were in an established capitalist market government.
ReplyDeleteThough Rawls idea of equal society would be nice, or doesn't seem possible. Though it did remind me of a sort of communisim society of hapinness in equality no matter what role you take.
ReplyDeletequestions on singer:
Factual- singer was considered a consequentialist, which meant the best action is the one that produces the best result. T or F?
Discussion- why do you think people do not practice the same compassion singer does about poverty and animal cruelty?
Rawls views seem to create a utopia of sorts. His idea of the rich essentially giving back to the poor, whether it be physical money or the enjoyment of what the rich do, for example basketball, baseball, etc. I do not think it is possible on a large scale, it would take a staggering mindset change all across the world.
ReplyDeleteFactual: What is Singer's judgement question on whether or not to do something to an animal?
Answer: Would you do it to a mentally-handicapped adult?
Discussion: Should animals be thought of in this way? In other words, should we acknowledge animal rights?
Rails' society may work well in theory, but it just is not applicable in today's world.
ReplyDeleteF: Singer believes that people in an "irreversible persistent vegetative state" should still not be pulled from life support. T or F? F
D: If we know that animal products are often derived from animal pain, why do we continue to eat animal products? Do we not care?
As with many of my groupmates, I feel that Rawls' idea on society is nice in theory but realistically unsustainable.
ReplyDeleteF: What does Singer call those who don't give enough weight to the interest of animals? A speceisist.
D: Do you consider good production inhumane enough to give up eating meat?