Please answer one of the questions. 1. John Rawls claims that his theory of justice offers “an alternative systematic account of justice that is superior […] to the dominant utilitarianism of the tradition” Compare and contrast Rawls’s account with that of utilitarianism. Does Rawls succeed in offering a “superior” account?2. Do you agree that in the original position would select John Rawls’s two principles over the alternatives? Give reasons for your answer.3. Critically consider the claim that “A hypothetical contract is not simply a pale form of an actual contract; it is no contract at all” (Ronald Dworkin, 1973, p. 501). Is this a problem for Rawls’s original position argument in A Theory of Justice?4. Explain and evaluate John Rawls’ difference principle.5. Should we make use of a veil of ignorance in reasoning about justice? Answer with reference to the relevant philosophical literature.6. Explain and evaluate Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice.7. Should principles of distributive justice “apply, wherever else they do, to people’s legally unconstrained choices” (Gerald Cohen 1997, p. 3)?8. Why, for Rawls, is “the primary subject of justice […] the basic structure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation” (TJ, p. 6)? Evaluate this claim with reference to Gerald Cohen’s critique.9. “A just world would be one without gender. In its social structures and practices, one’s sex would have no more relevance than one’s eye color or the length of one’s toes” (Susan Okin 1989, p. 171). Discuss with reference to the literature.10. Susan Okin alleges that John Rawls “fails entirely to address the justice of the gender system, which, with its roots in the sex roles of the family and its branches extending into virtually every corner of our lives, is one of the fundamental structures of society” (1989, p. 101). In what ways does Rawls fail to address the justice of the gender system and does this make his theory inadequate?11. Does justice require that marriage and/or the traditional family be abolished? Answer with reference to the relevant philosophical literature.12. “Rawls makes it clear that he links the idea of political justice very closely to the ability to make and abide by an agreement. There may certainly be moral duties to those where this basic capacity is absent, but not duties of justice” (Martha Nussbaum 2006, 66). Discuss.13. John Rawls assumes that everyone in society cooperates fully over a complete life. What complications arise when we accept that some people are physically and/or cognitively impaired? Can Rawls’s approach be extended to deal with such cases?14. Summarise and evaluate Linda Barclay’s ‘strategic’ argument in favour of the universal enfranchisement of all people with disabilities.15. Charles Mills accuses John Rawls of “producing a grotesquely sanitized and Eurocentric picture of the history of the last few hundred years, one from which race, racial conquest, and racial atrocity have been whitewashed out” (Mills 2009, p. 172). Does Rawls’s neglect of race represent a serious shortcoming in his theory?16. “In the just society White and Black people would not exist. Indeed, all racial categories would have ceased to exist”. Discuss with reference to the relevant philosophical literature.
