Topic: What role should equality and/or desert play in an account of justice?
1. Are you enrolled in ATS2869 or in ATS3869?
ATS3869
2. Are you going to focus on a particular interpretation of this topic? You might want to focus on a particular case study, or deliberately answer only part of the question. Explain your intentions. (1–2 sentences)
I will focus chiefly on Kekes’s paper, outlining his criticisms of egalitarianism, and – for the most part – agreeing with a lot of the objections, whilst still somewhat bearing an egalitarian sentiment.
3. What things have you read that you will consider and mention in your essay?
Summarise what is said in each of these works, and indicate how they are relevant to your topic: 1–3 sentences per work. …show more content…
What is your main conclusion? (1 sentence)
In a valid account of justice, you would be evaluated based on your own merit and context. And, in that respect, you are equal such that everyone else will be treated the same way.
5. Write a short outline of your essay. I recommend strongly against writing in bullet points. Your outline should consist of complete sentences. Avoid rhetorical questions. Your outline should indicate the structure of the argument that will support your conclusion. It should not simply be a list of unrelated topics that will be covered.
This should take at least 6 sentences, and can be up to three-quarters of a …show more content…
Those who deny egalitarianism may be thought of as being against fair policies and this might or might not be the case, but I think it is emotional manipulation. Having said this, I think that egalitarianism should be included into our account of justice, but as more of tacit understanding. Most people, provided they have some compassion for others, would identify with the sentiment of egalitarianism – that is, they desire to be empathetic toward other people. This is not to say that there is any obligation to help someone; you do not have to help someone because you are empathetic. Some might say that showing empathy is pretty much a prerequisite for not being a sociopath. If I were to define egalitarianism, it would be to say that ‘you are not special, but you matter’. You will be evaluated based on your own merit and context. And, in that respect, you are equal such that everyone else will be treated that way. But to say that you are currently unequal and life is bad, therefore other people are obligated to help you – I do not support that notion. I think that Kekes is equivocating on the intention of egalitarianism. To Kekes credit, sentiments and feelings are not reasons. And I would not say that policies should change based on my feelings. But even though, I think compassion and empathy is an important
1. Are you enrolled in ATS2869 or in ATS3869?
ATS3869
2. Are you going to focus on a particular interpretation of this topic? You might want to focus on a particular case study, or deliberately answer only part of the question. Explain your intentions. (1–2 sentences)
I will focus chiefly on Kekes’s paper, outlining his criticisms of egalitarianism, and – for the most part – agreeing with a lot of the objections, whilst still somewhat bearing an egalitarian sentiment.
3. What things have you read that you will consider and mention in your essay?
Summarise what is said in each of these works, and indicate how they are relevant to your topic: 1–3 sentences per work. …show more content…
What is your main conclusion? (1 sentence)
In a valid account of justice, you would be evaluated based on your own merit and context. And, in that respect, you are equal such that everyone else will be treated the same way.
5. Write a short outline of your essay. I recommend strongly against writing in bullet points. Your outline should consist of complete sentences. Avoid rhetorical questions. Your outline should indicate the structure of the argument that will support your conclusion. It should not simply be a list of unrelated topics that will be covered.
This should take at least 6 sentences, and can be up to three-quarters of a …show more content…
Those who deny egalitarianism may be thought of as being against fair policies and this might or might not be the case, but I think it is emotional manipulation. Having said this, I think that egalitarianism should be included into our account of justice, but as more of tacit understanding. Most people, provided they have some compassion for others, would identify with the sentiment of egalitarianism – that is, they desire to be empathetic toward other people. This is not to say that there is any obligation to help someone; you do not have to help someone because you are empathetic. Some might say that showing empathy is pretty much a prerequisite for not being a sociopath. If I were to define egalitarianism, it would be to say that ‘you are not special, but you matter’. You will be evaluated based on your own merit and context. And, in that respect, you are equal such that everyone else will be treated that way. But to say that you are currently unequal and life is bad, therefore other people are obligated to help you – I do not support that notion. I think that Kekes is equivocating on the intention of egalitarianism. To Kekes credit, sentiments and feelings are not reasons. And I would not say that policies should change based on my feelings. But even though, I think compassion and empathy is an important