Thursday 3/28
Contractarian Case Analysis
Readings
Cases
Synopsis
Today we discussed the complicated nature of applying Social Contract Theory in light of two rather difficult cases: "There will be Hell to pay . . ." and "Anti-Vax Tax". As we discovered, considering the veil of ignorance tends to lay bare the complicated nature of determining what counts as fairness and how difficult it can be to fairly (judiciously? justly?) weigh competing interests in a context where we insist on mutual benefit.
So it is one thing to determine that, for example, a principle of equal pay for equal work can be justified from behind the veil of ignorance, quite another to determine how to balance liberty and tolerance. It can be frustrating in pursuing these discussions to see the extent to which only more complications seem introduced, prompting further distinctions and, seemingly, multiplying complications.
Nevertheless, in appealing as we have to concepts like fairness and justice, we surely have added importantly to the concepts relevant to moral normative analysis, concepts like good consequences (utilitarianism) and respect for persons and respect for autonomy (deontology/Kant).
Next time (Tuesday, 4/2) we have the third of our four examinations. Where the first exam was worth a paltry 50 points, the second a more respectable 100 points, this exam is worth a whopping 150 points. It is important to be well-prepared for this exam, which should be easier given the practice you've had on the previous exams. Here is what you should expect on the exam:
- Kantian Ethical Theory
- Ethical Egoism
- Social Contract Theory
- Applying Kantian Ethical Theory and Social Contract Theory
- Extra Credit