Q For next week, please read John Rawls “The Original Position” from pages 125 – 132. This is the only required reading for this week. I decided to make the Baier essay optional; I also posted two essays from Charles Mills. You are free to write about any of those pieces for the discussion forum post, but you are only required to read Rawls. The quiz questions are only on Rawls. Questions for Consideration: • I encourage you to think seriously and critically about what we’ve been talking about concerning descriptive and prescriptive forms of analysis. Rawls is largely interested in prescriptive forms of analysis. I think one intriguing and productive area of engagement with his work is to question if some of of his theoretical (ie, prescriptive-leaning) definitions could be congruous with our current understanding of the world. Consider his definition of “society” for instance. What do you like if anything, is worthwhile, good, accurate about this definition? Secondly, and separately, do you think that this definition does an adequate job of defining society as it currently exists? If there is a gap between the prescriptive and descriptive, we need to think about that gap specifically. • How does Rawls define justice? • What are its important features? Are these accurate? Enough? Reject anything ? Add anything? • What does “justice as fairness” mean? What does it involve? • What is the original position? How does this work within Rawls’ theory of justice? • On page 126, Rawls contends that we have an intuitive conviction toward the primacy of justice– is that historically true? For people in power? For the oppressed? For those who have not been granted justice? • What is his stated relation to social contract theory? How do you see SCT playing out in the text? • What problems do you find with Rawls’ theory of justice, if any? • Ideal vs non-ideal theory. • Are his definitions accurate or just self-serving?

View Related Questions