Answer each of these questions in well structured essays of less than 1000 words.
Due Deans Date
Question #1 Embraceable Ewe
Professor Singer’s student, Romeo, read his teacher’s celebrated article in Nerve.com. He is buoyed by his Professor Singer’s utilitarian argument because he has fallen in love with Juliet and wants to marry her. Juliet is a sheep, a charming, eligible ewe. Romeo proposes and Juliet says “Baa”. They are denied a marriage license by the state of New Jersey, and Romeo is stigmatized by narrow minded “speciesists” at Ivy Club, who celebrate the engagement with a dinner party featuring rack of lamb. Unable to convince traditional moralists at Ivy, Romeo appeals to political philosophers like those taking Politics 307, claiming that he and Juliet have been unjustly treated. Romeo claims that his Nozickian right to freedom of contract has been violated, and Juliet agrees, claiming “Baa”. Romeo claims that New Jersey state law excluded him from equal protection, and that he now feels like the “Other”. Juliet also feels marginalized, stating, “Baa”. Romeo claims that he and Juliet both have a Rawlsian right to the social bases of self respect which have been denied by people affirming traditional notions of marriage and family which sacrifice the priority of the right to an archaic sense of the good. Romeo maintains that he cannot shore up his flagging self esteem when his late sister in law to be, Dolly, is the entrée. Invoking the difference principle, Juliet agrees, insisting, “Baa”. What rights does justice require for transspecies couples? (Marriage? Divorce? Inheritance? Adoption? Lamb Custody?) Discuss how Rawls, Nozick and Mill might address this problem, and then explain your solution.
Question #2 Splendor in the Grass
98 years in the future, Bill Gates 3.0 has inherited his grandfather’s estate. Bill 3.0 owns the rights to Windows 2100, and since Chief Justice Posner’s landmark Supreme Court ruling of 2030 which held that Microsoft is not a monopoly but a gift from God, Bill 3.0’s personal holdings have grown to the point where they now exceed the GDP of the third world. Bill 3.0, (whose life work is counting the blades of grass in his back yard) claims that this is just. Citing Aristotle’s dictum that “virtue is a mean between two vices” he looks up from his lawn and points out that he is roughly halfway between owning nothing and owning the entire planet. Is his claim just? Use Kant, Van Parijs and Locke in your answer.
Question #3 Feet Don’t Fail Me Now
“Freck” a citizen of a society that claims to be just, has established a website called “Cutoffmyfeet.com”. He intends to sell the rights to watch as he amputates his own feet with a homemade guillotine. Various students of Politics 307, who advocated rival theories of justice, discussed this question. Their views were as follows. According to student A, Judge Posner is right: the $20 fee is reasonable, and it is wealth maximizing, so amputating your feet on the Internet is just. Student B insisted that Nozick is right: they’re his feet and he has a right to do anything he wants to with them. Student C prefers Milton Friedman, but he wants to eliminate the guillotine and let market forces remove the feet. Student D favored Etzioni’s communitarianism, arguing that the public at large is harmed by the spectacle of watching feet amputated, but isn’t sure if there is a normative consensus about amputating feet in private, and he wants to cultivate a civil dialogue on the issue. Student E supported one reading of Rawls. He believed that Freck is the least advantaged and that the difference principle indicates that government policies should require people with healthy feet to contribute portions of their feet to Freck. What right do people have to healthy feet because of the morally irrelevant fact of having won the “foot lottery”? he asked. Student F offered a different Rawlsian interpretation. He thought that the feet are even less advantaged than the rest of Freck and argued that the difference principle demands that after being cut off, the government should give Freck’s feet a torso and arms and legs and a head and the social bases of self respect and lots of other stuff. Student G, who prefers Mill, awaits more data on how many people are watching in order to do the utilitarian calculation. His preliminary analysis indicates that if more than 312,857 people watch, Internet foot amputation is just, but that twice that number of spectators are needed if Freck only amputates one foot. Student H, thought that everyone who pays to watch Freck amputate his feet should be forced to take powerful medication for an indefinite period of time, and, in a Procrustean afterthought, suggested that Freck’s head should be amputated by a professional at public expense.
You have the last word.
Contribute to the discussion.
Explain what justice demands for Freck.
Question #4 Till Philosophers are Kings
Judge Posner, in the 1997 Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures at Harvard Law School, said “Academic moralists pick from an a la carte menu the moral principles that coincide with the preferences of their social set. They have the intellectual agility to weave an inconsistent heap of policies into a superficially coherent unity and the psychological agility to honor their chosen principles only to the extent compatible with their personal happiness and professional achievement.” Discuss why Posner is mistaken about ethics and political theory, and how Plato was right in believing that smart, highly educated people are more virtuous than other members of society. Be sure to explain how going to graduate school and learning to make very subtle arguments endows people with superior powers of moral discernment. Comment on the central importance of egalitarianism to such theorists. Cite the work of at least three contemporary political philosophers in your answer.