| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "RAWLS VEIL IGNORANCE": |
|
|
To Be Veiled or Not To Be Veiled, 2002.
This paper discusses the case of the muslim woman who refused to remove her veil for the photo for her driving license.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
She was later ordered by a Florida court to remove her veil for the photo for her driving license. The paper discusses the issues surrounding this news story, and concludes with the opinion that the lady did not have the right to use her veil for the photo.
| |
|
Rawls, Nozick and Distributive Justice, 2007.
A discussion on whether the liberal state should be concerned with the 'losers' in a capitalist economy.
1,538 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is a comparison between the political theories of John Rawls and Robert Nozick and their opinions on distributive justice. Very emotive examples are utilised throughout this paper and the welfare state and the legitimacy of such a system is discussed. The Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' to legitimise the welfare state is described and the counter arguments of Nozick are reviewed. Finally, there is also a mention of morality and philanthropy.
From the Paper
"Rawls's theory is based upon the view that there should be an equal distribution of the wealth of society among all individuals, where "everyone should have an equal share" (Clayton et al, 2002, p165). He believes that all individuals have an equal claim to these benefits and that individuals should not be "advantaged or disadvantaged by natural future or social circumstances" (John Rawls, 1971, p18) in their lives which they have no direct control over, such as family, social class, and physical and mental attributes. His view is that men are born into different positions within society and so they have different expectations of life determined, in part by the political system, as well as by economic and social circumstances and in this way the institutions of society "favour certain starting places over others" (Ibid, 1971, p7). "
| |
|
John Rawls: Political Philosopher, 2005.
This paper compares the writings of political philosopher John Rawls with the writings of Robert Nozick and Friedrich Nietzsche.
1,570 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that John Rawls' thinks of his justice principles as fairness which ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance. The author points out that Robert Nozick is saying, if you take a society where some are poor and some wealthy, and spread the wealth around equally - as Rawls suggests must be done to have "justice" and "fairness" in a society - you're basically taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The paper relates that justice isn't necessarily about "fairness", in Nietzsche's world; it's in part about "reactive feelings" to an injustice.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Rawls: About Justice
Robert Nozick's Philosophical Positions vis-a-vis John Rawls Suggesting Shortcomings in Rawls' Theories
Nietzsche's View of Justice Collides with Rawls
From the Paper
"In going to great lengths to explain justice, he adds that he is not saying the concepts of justice and fairness are identical. Rather, he is alluding to the "traditional theory of the social contract," which is that in real, pure, un-corrupted fairness, "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status." Also, no one knows his "fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like." The principles of justice, in his hypothetical description, are agreed to "in an initial situation that is fair." The parties in this concept of understanding justice are "rational and mutually disinterested" - and they are not "taking an interest in one another's interests," he writes. He further sets up his argument by suggesting that those persons in his initial situation would choose two "rather different principles." "
| |
|
The Debate Between Rawls and Habermas, 2009.
A discussion of the debate between John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas regarding the incompatibility of different comprehensive doctrines.
1,936 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides a brief overview and discussion of the debate between John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas. The writer describes the context of the debate and the problem that sparked it, and explains key elements of Rawls' theory, Habermas's criticism of Rawls, and key elements of Habermas' theory. Some of their significant differences are explored, as, for example, where Rawls universalizes the principles of public reason (overlapping consensus), Habermas universalizes the principles of rational discourse (ethics of discourse). The writer contends that both theories are significant for theological ethics, since both strive to reach some sort of agreement leading to fairness and equality of people of distinct comprehensive doctrine.
From the Paper
"The main problem that is before us is one of a reassessment of the foundations of modernity. The two world wars which caused unparalleled numbers of deaths and, in particular that of WWII with its unprecedented atrocities and crimes against humanity, seem to provide evidence or proof for something that could be in put in place to prevent wars that could no longer solely be blamed on religion or class struggles. The fundamental question at stake was whether the great confidence in reason and science (technology) has been perhaps overemphasized and was not a reliable means to ensure a peaceful existence for humanity amongst our vast differences. Both Rawls and Habermas are looking at the same problem and both start at the same point, namely the incompatibility of different comprehensive doctrines."
| |
|
John Rawls? ?A Theory of Justice?, 2002.
This paper discusses John Rawls' ?A Theory of Justice?, which presents a theory of justice that supports the liberal-democratic viewpoint of the rights and freedoms of individuals in society.
1,710 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper states that the John Rawls' theory declares that no inborn benefits of political authority, substance riches or natural capability should irreversibly or overpoweringly establish life chances and that these morally subjective issues should not establish the value of political liberties to moral persons. The author points out that Rawls and numerous other moderate philosophers employed this theory as a weapon with which to impose warfare on the English nobility by which a minority was repressing monetarily and socially a majority. The author believes that, in the twentieth century, John Rawls's emphasis on impartiality has lured extra observations and stimulated extended concentration than any other exertion in ethical or opinionated philosophy.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Origin of the Theory and the State of the Justice System at that Time
Justification
Constructivism
Utilitarianism
Intuitionism
Contrast with Kant?s Theory
Impact of the Theory; Now and Then
From the Paper
"Setting the juncture for his conjecture of justice Rawls aims at the departure of utilitarianism and labels it a "distribution problem". As stated by Rawls, utilitarianism grows erroneous if it disappoints to disburse concentration to how that welfare is circulated; there is nothing incorrect, however, with the utilitarian model of publicizing the common interests. The contentment of others cannot make up for the immense anguishes by a few. This is a sharing difficulty as when the pain is circulated in one location and the pleasure is circulated everyplace else, delight disappoints to recompense for the pain i.e. "one man's fortune is another man's gain". Or else if one endures at the present for some afterward reward, then the victim is satisfied later, than likewise the beneficiary of the anguish is afterward the receiver of the pleasure, equalizes it. Equally, it is unjust to compel one to compensate for one?s sins but just if one compensates for himself. Utilitarians can't eliminate a definite type of discriminatory agreement for the reason that the reimbursements and afflictions are not disseminated reasonably by being oblivious to how that pleasure is scattered and in its place considering the figure of bliss. It is vital to observe that it is the injustice that plights Rawls not the inequality of the agreement. Such an unjust conclusion cannot survive in any moral organization. Therefore, it is no chance that considering this Rawls opts to name his conjecture "Justice as Fairness"."
| |
|
Rawls and Utilitarianism, 2002.
This paper discusses the difference in Rawls opinion to that of Utilitarianism.
3,525 words (approx. 14.1 pages), 6 sources, $ 129.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics that suggests that the rightness or wrongness of a certain action is determined by the amount of happiness that it produces for the greatest number of people. Rawls saw a weakness in utilitarianism in that it assumed that the rights of the minority could be sacrificed for the good of the majority. Rawls believed that the basic social institutions of the well-ordered state, including its constitution, had to satisfy the fundamental principles of social justice. This was his main concern. He especially believed that such a principle was directly connected to having a contract where everyone understood that it was in everyone's interest to have social justice.
| |
|
Distributive Justice: John Rawls and Social Injustice Issues, 2006.
A discussion of John Rawls theory of justice and how it can be applied to the issues and problems of the homeless.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Determining how well-suited distributive justice theories are as frameworks for formulating and/or defending the justice-related grievances and aspirations of homeless people can best be achieved by focusing on a particular theory. Narrowing the focus primarily to the work of a specific distributive justice theorist, such as John Rawls, provides a concise and clearly defined framework which can then be systematically applied to homelessness issues. This paper examines the applicability of Rawls' theory in the context of addressing the grievances and aspirations of homeless people.
| |
|
Voter Ignorance and the War in Iraq, 2008.
This paper explores how the public's ignorance was used to justify the war in Iraq and the fight against Al Qaeda.
3,091 words (approx. 12.4 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 90.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explores the general population's perception of the intervention in Iraq and deals with the phenomenon of voter ignorance in America. The paper looks at issues related to Islam and Al Qaeda from the point of view of ideology, mission and values and identifies the political context and the different approaches presented in the US at the time of going to war. The paper shows clearly how voter ignorance and political battles in the US allowed the Bush administration to garner wide support for the war in Iraq.
From the Paper
"The war in Iraq is viewed as being one of the most controversial decisions of the US foreign policy of the last decade. There have been numerous discussions over the morality of the intervention on a sovereign territory, without the agreement of the United Nations and, in the end, without a plausible reason for attack. Nonetheless, by 2003, the US led coalition had entered Iraq under the argument of the existence of the weapons of mass destruction. Still, to this day, it is a rather questionable issue the actual existence of the weapons; therefore, there is no full legitimacy of the intervention in a sovereign country."
| |
|
Ignorance is Bliss, 2004.
An examination of the concept of ignorance in Ray Bradbury's novel, "Fahrenheit 451".
1,354 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Bradbury explores the idea of ignorance and its possible consequences in his novel, "Fahrenheit 451". To emphasize the theme of ignorance versus knowledge, the writer points out how Bradbury fuses this notion with conformity. These two themes operate together to illustrate how society can be manipulated into becoming passive to the point of stupidity. It explains how Bradbury utilizes symbols of mirrors and fire to prompt Montag?s character into becoming something other than a mindless drone. With the imagery of his hands, Bradbury illustrates how Montag develops throughout the course of the novel. The writer concludes how, through symbolism and imagery, Bradbury illustrates how Montag?s fight against the system proves to be an enlightening experience that also speaks out against censorship.
From the Paper
"Bradbury utilizes several symbols in the novel to emphasize how society has given in to conformity. One significant symbol used throughout the novel is the mirror. The mirror becomes a symbolic in that it is something to which people can look and study themselves. Rafeeq McGiveron states that they are metaphorical ?for only through the self-examination it makes possible can people recognize their own shortcomings? (McGiveron Mirror). Early in the novel, the mention of a mirror ?emphasizes the need for self-examination? (McGiveron Mirror). When Montag thinks that he might wink at himself in the mirror after attending a book burning McGiveron believes that the wink is Montag accepting himself in ?not reflective but reflexive? (McGiveron Mirror) way because ?his glance is superficial rather than searching? (McGiveron Mirror). This is significant to Montag?s development because it illustrates how he is a conformist at the beginning of the novel. He believes, just as all the others do that ?it was a pleasure to burn? (Bradbury 3). Montag does not actually see who he really is even when he looks in the mirror. McGiveron?s assertion that he is superficial is significant because that is how society is taught they should be. There is no deep thinking and there is no questioning why this should be."
| |
|
Patriotism, Ignorance and September 11th, 2002.
A look at national patriotism and ignorance in the wake of September 11th with an emphasis on corporate training and development.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 8 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper investigates the current cultural demonstrations of patriotism and ignorance that have come about as a result of September 11th, and compares and contrasts the significance of these events to others found in America's history, as well as the independent impact of September 11th itself. A focus on corporate training and development is used to direct the later half of this paper.
| |
|
Short Stories of Human Ignorance, 2006.
A comparison between "The Yellow Wallpaper" by C. P. Gilman and "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" by G. G. Marquez.
1,097 words (approx. 4.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A discussion regarding the theme of uncivilized behavior due to human ignorance, in "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman and "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. According to the paper, in analyzing these short stories we are confronted with two unexplored possibilities in life, as interpreted by the authors and personified by their stories' protagonists.
From the Paper
"As a woman struggling to free and define herself from society's oppressive nature against women, the female protagonist raises many issues which symbolically represents her oppression. Among these issues is the fact that she cannot work because of her condition: "...am absolutely forbidden to "work" until I am well again...Personally, I believe that congenial work, with excitement and change, would do me good." These lines of thought from the protagonist reflect the woman's disagreement on he husband's belief that she needs rest. As a housewife confined mostly at home, the woman yearned to develop herself, to function as an able individual not just in her home but in her society as well. Thus, work became a symbolic manifestation of the woman's yearning for freedom: freedom from the oppressive label of being a housewife, and freedom from being limited and dictated what she needs to do and not do."
| |
|
Finding Refuge in Ignorance, 2002.
This paper looks at Socrates' belief that one knows nothing and examines what virtue actually is.
2,840 words (approx. 11.4 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 84.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A discussion of whether it is possible to arrive at the truth by purely asking questions and refuting poorly constructed arguments and how one defines and recognises virtue. The author examines the philosophies of Plato and Socrates in order to determine whether one in fact knows nothing and whether virtue or in fact anything, can be taught or learned.
From the Paper
"Socrates was killed for the radical ways in which his questions undermined the defined reality of Grecian society. Plato certainly did not want to follow in his teacher?s footsteps in this particular fashion, and one can find within elements of his dialogues a hesitance to take his questions regarding the foundation of culture to their logical extents. For example, in Meno he temporarily defines virtue as wisdom in order to prove that it cannot be taught, and while he takes that definition away again, the fact that this line of questioning might eventually discredit virtue altogether is neatly sidestepped. Plato claims for Socrates ignorance only to the degree of innocence, but by pitting Socrates against flawed opponents, he does not push that radical ignorance to such a degree that it could threaten the supports of society."
| |
|
"Fitna": Intentional Ignorance of Islam, 2008.
An analysis of how the film "Fitna" presents a misleading representation of Islam.
1,883 words (approx. 7.5 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Geert Wilders' film, "Fitna" is a particularly good example of Western portrayal of Islam as backwards, violent and uncivilized and how the film portrays all Muslims as violent, intolerant, especially against Western nations and ideals. It looks at how the film utilizes graphic scenes of violence, such as clips of the September 11th attacks of the World Trade Center, to grab the viewer's attention and create a fear of Islam. It contends that the film is a biased and inaccurate portrayal of the majority of Muslims and that while certainly some Muslims are radical and possibly violent, the film "Fitna" makes a deliberate and intentional effort to perpetuate the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Muslims in order to create an artificial fear and hatred of Islam.
From the Paper
"Far from the product of an unintelligent, unorganized effort, Fitna is well constructed and thought out, which is why its message is so dangerous. The film's persuasiveness comes from a variety of factors, the most technical of which is the film's very construction. The film begins with the image of an Arabic man wearing a turban, which has a fuse protruding from the top. Immediately the film then moves to an image of the Qur'an and then split screen pictures of the translation of a passage from the Qur'an and planes flying into the World Trade Center. While these images alone can have very different meanings, showing them together artificially creates a meaning that the Qur'an is directly promoting terrorism and violence against civilian targets. "
| |
|
Voter Ignorance, 2001.
Discusses studies on uninformed voters; poorly informed and fully informed voting behaviors. Low voter turnout in U.S.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The political ignorance of the adult American is one of the best-documented features of contemporary politics (Bartels, 194). For example, a 1995 survey conducted for The Washington Post by Harvard University and the Kaiser Foundation found that nearly half of all adults could not answer basic questions about U.S. government, much less specifics about issues and officeholders or candidates (Chavez, 14A). In particular, the survey found that 40 percent of adults could not name the vice president, and almost half failed to identify the speaker of the House (Chavez, 14A).
Consequently, many political theorists argue that many voters neither know nor care enough about the democratic process to cast intelligent, informed votes (See Chavez, 14A). They argue that democracy entails more than a willing electorate. Those who vote have a ..."
| |
|
Ignorance is Bliss -"1984", 2007.
An examination of George Orwell's use of literary techniques throughout "1984" to advocate changes in social and political attitudes and traditions.
2,978 words (approx. 11.9 pages), 0 sources, $ 87.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how George Orwell uses different attitudes towards different topics including morals, love and sex, religion, God and propaganda, to express his feelings towards different things. It examines how in his novel, "1984", all of these things have one thing in common; they are regulated and controlled by the government. The paper also looks at how Orwell uses all these attitudes and traditions to show his disapproval of the totalitarian government.
From the Paper
"In addition to acknowledgment of beliefs, Orwell uses certain literary techniques to express a similar idea of people possessing the power to recognize their true feelings regarding love and sex. Many instances throughout the novel insinuate Orwell's desire to change the way sex is viewed by society. One technique Orwell uses to express these ideas is satire. Orwell mocks the uptight attitude people seem to have towards sexual relations through Winston's wife, Katherine. Katherine seems to "wince and stiffen" at the slightest sexual innuendo made by Winston (67). Katherine views sex as having one purpose: for "making a baby" (67). Katherine believes it is her and Winston's "duty to the party" to engage in sexual activity only for the purpose of procreation and not because they have feelings of love for each other (67). "
|
|
|
