By On Tuesday, September 3rd, 2013 Categories : Review

The other tests are a theoretical background for the testing of the current and review. The method can be described as a kind of conceptual analysis designed to loose our shared moral articulate ideas and implicit evidence , the underlying principles . This task is, of course , is largely descriptive , and Raphael are rarely , let alone answer a clear question unambiguously normative. But if the questions are about what we think or what to do , both questions and answers are often sufficiently clear because it is difficult to assess the arguments that support them . Ideas about certain Raphael , as the title suggests , justice and freedom , but also the ideas of utility and equal opportunities with the different aspects , perhaps irreducibly distinct from justice merit , need and equality . Some issues are important: the extent to which justice and freedom are fundamentally at odds , tile extent the demands of justice arise ( and are therefore compatible with ) the principle of utility, the extent to which various legal aspects of the conflict , and finally the lelation between each of the preceding and the requirement for equal opportunity . In a brief discussion , it will be possible to talk about a few examples. Of the treatment of these problems Test 9 , reverse discrimination ‘ , begins with a long and detailed explanation of the Bakke decision and pointed out a number of factual and legal issues that the author , at least , have not been aware of . It evolves into an examination of the ethical significance of the distinction on which it appears . Is there really a difference , such as a university uses a system of ” quotas ” or a system in which a weight is given to race in a complex system? (1410 Raphael believes that the difference is significant. Eight the issue of reverse discrimination in general and in relation to the context of a conflict between the rights of different individuals , but mainly a conflict between individual rights and the wider purpose of protection. Social I said more clearly involved individual rights are the rights of nonminority candidate – . Bakke What are these rights and why ” reverse discrimination ” violating their fundamental right as Raphael see is a right to be treated ” as an individual ” and that he ? seems to think , means that the application procedures by not ” prejudge the outcome ” ( 142-144 ) . HEOR that an applicant must be in such a position could be able with sufficient initiative to his chances of improve ITER. Raphael is dealing with a very difficult question to know what exactly , here’s the problem with ( illegal ) discrimination, which makes it different from the legitimate use of the selection criteria in the recruitment and admission of students – . ” The reaction of Raphael , will not do . On the one hand, it is not bad for a fire , for example, refuse to hire people with certain physical disabilities also do is to leave some people with no chance no matter how hard they try adopted . In addition, a system of ” quotas ” as actually used in Davis where a fixed number of seats are reserved for minorities not let someone like Bakke with a fighting chance , because it can improve minority position relative to other – no candidates . Basically, what Raphael think is unfair is not always wrong , and in any case present in the quota system whose injustice he wanted to explain was not . It is unfortunate that things are not much better in his discussion of justice and liberty , ( central question of the book . I will discuss this next paragraph. Essay 2 is called ” freedom and fair shares: . Issues in an election ” It explores the political and philosophical differences between the Labour Party and the Conservatives sector as set put in the countryside in Glasgow in 1950 . Supported Employment for what he called ” Fair Share ” and conservatives defended the value of what they called freedom. Conservatives accused Labour of his levelers and ignore the claims of those who are willing to work to earn more were hard. Labor has denied the charges , making clear what they meant when they called ” equitable distribution ” and ruled that it was something that the Conservatives rejected. Raphael regrets the failure of contenders ever to understand where they agreed and where they differed , but particularly regrets the failure of the major third party , the Liberals , the possibility of a housing between the two main contenders see and move it forward as a positive alternative to their essentially negative . a housing been possible positions , he believes, for ” … the two concepts of freedom and justice are complementary and not contradictory . ( 31 ) This is an interesting application , especially if justice requires equal distribution of benefits based on merit . because when people are free to pursue their economic affairs as they wish to manage , there is no reason to assume that they will always meet the requirements of justice. And Raphael said in his first trial , there is a prima facie case of equality in . the title essay ( 7 ) , ” justice and freedom , ” he repeated this request and added that justice requires treatment on the basis of merit as it is in this essay that attempts to show that justice and freedom are not incompatible : . both equality and merit .. be well accommodated in the single concept of justice as similar protection of the individual, and as such .. are not fundamentally … else thinking that underlies the idea of ​​freedom ” ( 37 ) . This statement is hopelessly vague , but we must assume that Raphael means to assert the compatibility of justice and freedom . Unjustifiable . His arguments to the conclusion First he says that the compatibility of freedom and the demands of merit defining a right to freedom from all ight as a legitimate desires can not be countered . He says that the requirements of merit are not incompatible with the right to self – freedom ( 43-44 ) . He then proposed the alternative argument that the demands for freedom are compatible with the claims of merit if we view that what people earn is identical with the ” natural ” results of their activities ( 44-45 ) . The first argument shows that deserves full respect does not interfere with a truncated view of freedom, the second shows that compliance with a truncated conception of merit requires no limits to complete freedom . Both arguments and we have a dilemma , not a solution to our problem .
What about the alleged compatibility of freedom and equality ? Raphael first argues that the liberal ideal of equality Iwiils to a belief in equality and the belief in the need to deliver products to meet their basic needs . Each , I would have thought , implies limits to freedom . Cabin Raphael said: ” What if … the key element in the idea of ​​freedom is .. positive factor value individuality , the essential point of justice and freedom are the same ” (56 ) . I leave the reader scoop edge care if this is enough to reconcile . equal rights and freedom