Monday, 9/25: John Rawls' Justice as Fairness

Today's Learning Goals

• Evaluate the pros and cons of John Rawl's philosophy called Justice as Fairness
• Contrast his philosophy to communism and the egalitarian nightmare of "Harrison Bergeron" ​

STARTER 13: Review
Review the MORAL PHILOSOPHY POWERPOINT- Slides #14-28 (definitions of Welfare, Liberty and Equality/Fairness through the slides on Rawls' Justice as Fairness explained)
To help you retain this information, write a "reaction" to the ideas we've studied so far in moral philosophy-- some things to consider for your reaction:

• Which philosophy or "approaches" do you find yourself agreeing with the most? Why?
• Pick a moral dilemma or current political issue and solve it from the perspective of a Utilitarian (either Bentham or J.S. Mills), a Libertarian or John Rawls.
• What questions do you still have about the content we've covered so far?
• Draw an image that captures these two ideas from Utilitarianism: 1. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few  2. The ends (outcomes) justify the means (methods/actions to achieve the outcome)

Class Biz

• This week's deadlines/assignments 
• Guest speaker coming Wednesday-- Professor Sarah Roberts-Cady from FLC to talk about the difference between conservative liberalism and a more Rawls-like conception of liberalism. She is RAD! 
• Suggestions for Test Prep

Agenda
1. Go over questions y'all have about the philosophies thus far

2. Study group time for Ch. 6 (First, silently re-read  your group's notes for the previous chapters, then, together, complete the discussion questions for chapter 6).

3. Rawls' philosophy taken to the extreme: an Egalitarian Nightmare?! We'll check out slides 26-31 of the powerpoint linked above and talk about a short story called "Harrison Bergeron".

Discussion Questions
•How does Rawls’ philosophy differ from communism?
•Do you think your talents are your own doing? Do you deserve the rewards your talents produce? What about the rewards your hard work produce? What does Rawls think? (read pages 162-164)
•Is the possession of a right to pursue happiness empty if we lack the ability or opportunity to exercise it? Do the sharp divisions between haves and have-nots—whether of wealth, opportunity, or natural talents—mean that equality is not achievable, without government intervention?
•Why do Americans love equality? Should we? Can the desire for it ever be satisfied?
•What do we owe those of our fellow citizens who are worse off through no fault of their own? 
•Would you object if society sought equality not by handicapping the gifted but by lifting up the not-gifted, say through genetic engineering or biotechnological enhancement? Evaluate the pros and cons of “lifting up.” 
•To what extent do you all feel you’ve achieved today’s learning goals? What questions do you still have?