David Schmidtz Equal Respect Analysis

In the readings of “Equal Respect & Equal Shares,” David Schmidtz displays various arguments against equal shares as a principle of justice. Notably he is highly stringent in the case of equal shares as a principle of justice when contrasting with the principle of first possession. I will argue that many of the objections have been leveled against the act of first possession in light of equality as well as respect. I will focus on Schmidtz discussion of the benefits of first possession and the rewards reaped through the accruing of assets through the principle of first possession and note some clarifications that are needed in order to identify who happens to be benefiting the most in light of such a principle .Schmidtz first uses the rational …show more content…
With this David positions himself in disagreement with Bruce Ackerman’s opinion that the moral default concept for equality is equal shares. Instead, maintaining that equal treatment gives a fair sense of worthiness and equal justice to every person relative to his or her contribution to the society. — 248— " David calls for us to conceptualize a realm in which there is a town with 100 people has 100 lots, each 100 feet wide. These lots are divided equally, and by law, will remain equal. Everytime a new agent moves into this town, all of the natives’ lots lines are redrawn thus shrinking. Schmidtz is puzzled as to “how friendly will this town be?” (257) Being that xenophobia is “a variable we want to minimize if we can” — 258— , he acknowledges this as an argument that counts against equal shares egalitarianism. The equal shares egalitarian’s rebuttal would be along the lines of, including more within the enterprise would indeed shrink plots of first comers, but in doing so more people could lead us to economic progress a decent response in plight of first possession nonetheless still …show more content…
The purpose of equality is very different here not to make sure the performance is equal so that results are equal. We apply the same rules to all contestants in which we would say a level playing field. We don’t say equal playing field because people come to sports naturally with different abilities. And this doesn’t make it any less fair. also states that respecting them as first possessors is also essential in not becoming envious of the things they have because they respectfully arrived to the good first. Im not so convinced that it’s in humans nature to want more, I find he is quite generous in the reasonings of those late to the party or those with less then. To further expand and center argument the kind of equality that matters depends on the context you’re in whether in the classroom, sports and or society, rules and values applied depend a lot on the purpose of the activity. What really matter is the quality of opportunities that people have with allocated resources and not the comparative distribution of resources. Well-being means living in a society that promotes many quality opportunities for everyone