giovedì 20 novembre 2008

Tutorial # 9. Political Philosophy. Equality and Desert. Discussion Questions

In light of the readings you have done (especially George Sher, ‘Effort, Ability, and Personal Desert’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 8:4 (1979), pp. 361–376), think about these questions.

  • What sorts of economic arrangements are best? Compare capitalism, which advocates private ownership and free markets, and socialism, which advocates collective ownership and central planning. Which one promotes better well-being, rewarding the deserving, protecting liberty?
  • A familiar argument in recent social theorizing is that because no one deserves either his native talents or his ability to exert effort, no one can be said to deserve any advantages made possible by his talents or abilities: ‘People do not deserve their natural abilities; therefore, they do not deserve advantages which they achieve with those abilities.’ Is this a plausible view?
  • What is equality?
  • People differ from each other in many respects. Why should equality be a political goal then?
  • In what, if anything, people should be equal?
  • Do different people deserve different rewards? Why would a CEO deserve more monetary reward than a philosophy tutor?
  • Do we have a natural right on anything? Do we have a natural right on private property?
  • Most universities advertise their vacancies stating that they are committed to equality and diversity? Often, on a job ad, one may find the disclaimer “women and minorities are particularly encouraged to apply”. What does that mean?
  • Would that imply a sort of “inverse discrimination”? That is, if women are underrepresented in a philosophy department, should the hiring committee particularly welcome applications from female candidates? Should women deserve and advantage in such situations?
  • Compare the passage by St Matthew and that by Marx. What are the differences? Which one do you find more convincing? Why?
  • Would one deserve anything according to his capacities or according to his needs?
  • Why does Rawls (see Sher) believe that people do not deserve their character and abilities?
  • Are our natural assets really undeserved because they are brought into existence by events independent of anything we ourselves have done?

Nessun commento: