Part I
We studied Aristotle who said that the ultimate purpose of the human individual is to be a virtuous human being, that is one whose rational part is guiding his irrational parts.
According to Aristotle, virtues are not “natural” like passions, they are states of character that one acquires via hard work in a flourishing polis (to find the balance between excess and deficiency). For Aristotle, one can only acquire virtue within the State (Polis).
According to Hobbes, the State is established on a contract that people set up for self-preservation and the State caters to the universal interest of all individuals.
According to Marx, the State only reflects the vested interests of those who control the modes of production or the most important economic modes of the day. Hence, the State reflects only class interest.
Question:
Which of the above three do you agree with most (or you may agree with a combination of two or all three of them)? Give one reason to support your answer.
Part II
1. What are the three foundational principles of Rawls’s “Justice as Fairness” under the Veil Of Ignorance?
2. Does Rawls think that for “Justice as Fairness” to happen, the State should be involved in people’s love?
3. Is Rawls’ inconsistent in thinking that (a) one starts with the Veil Of Ignorance (b) one chooses the values of liberty, equality, and difference even under the “Veil of Ignorance” where one is not supposed to prefer one value over another? Given one reason to justify your answer.
Part III
1. Explain in your own words Sen’s theory of endowment, entitlement, and entitlement mapping with the help of one example for each.
For example, endowment is someone’s initial resources, entitlement is the right over the endowments, and e-mapping is the ability to convert the initial endowment into entitlement.
2. Do you think liberty as a value is more important than equality?
If you had to choose, would you prefer a society with free speech and liberty and less equality or a society with more equality and less liberty? Give one reason to support your answer.
Sen thinks in terms of famines that liberty helps the population in terms of crisis due to a free media (case in point how India controlled famines better than China:
India China
2.2 billion people 4 billion
Working democracy, secular, free market. One Party, no democracy, capitalist system, religion prohibited
Liberty and freedom of expression allowed free media No free media, freedom of expression not allowed.
Huge Income inequality More equality in terms of wealth distribution
Controlled famines and scarcity better due to free press Could not control famine, huge loss of lives due to not freedom of media
India China
2.2 billion people 4 billion
Working democracy, secular, free market. One Party, no democracy, capitalist system, religion prohibited
Liberty and freedom of expression allowed free media No free media, freedom of expression not allowed.
Huge Income inequality More equality in terms of wealth distribution
Controlled famines and scarcity better due to free press Could not control famine, huge loss of lives due to not freedom of media
According to Sen, India controlled famines better than China as there is a free media in India and there are a working democracy and people pressured the State to act in famines.