This is a two parts assignment, please follow the instruction to finish it. Please feel free to ask me any question if you feel confuse. Please pay more attention on the supper important assignment for me.
300 max each, 1800 max total. You can choose any six of the eleven but make sure follow the instruction. If you need any material form the course please let me know. Thanks.
Thanks so much.
- Aristotle’s Theory of Politics and Justice as Fairness
Aristotle (384–322 BCE), one of the ancient philosophical thinkers was known for his theories in various fields of philosophy. His daily lifestyle contributed to his interest in politics and democratic systems. The theory of politics promotes states economic relations and discourages slavery among nations. Aristotle argued that the formation of associations led to the achievement of the economic greatest good and that human beings were separated by significant differences within their surroundings. Hence, the variances could be eliminated if people lived in unity and helped each other in time of need. He continued to argue that politics and justice were related disciplines in the field of philosophy and that the idea of justice strengthened relationship between mankind. He considered ethics as an integral part of humanity since it involved virtues that promoted moral role in the society. Different people have various ways in which they contribute wealth to the economy and receive benefits in proportion to their contribution. Therefore, Aristotle’s principle of justice encourages fairness among individuals and societies by encouraging strong relationships where individuals are considered equal and free. Indeed, these measures by the society encourage togetherness and justice finds its way to the citizens.
- John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism) and the Court’s Decision.
Mill’s principle of utility argues that actions are considered right depending on their capability to promote happiness to all human beings. If such actions fail to bring joy they are considered wrong. With joy individuals maintain good relationships with each other and to the society as a whole. In his reconsideration of the utilitarianism principle, Mill stated that pleasure should be both mental and sensual, whereby he preferred intellectual to sensual pleasure, meaning that individuals should make use of their brains rather than their strength to achieve social goal
The scholar stated that the principle of utilitarianism formed the moral foundation and further suggested that human rights and obligation were determined by maximum gain as well as minimum loss. Utilitarianism was considered a supreme law of ethics, through which the justification of moral responsibility was passed. Mill propose that human nature calls for sympathy and perfection among other people and does not consider morality as a self-directed aspect but a social goal. Therefore, before drawing conclusion on any matter, individuals and groups should put in mind the aspect of morality. Therefore, according to this analysis the court’s decision was wrong since it did not sympathize with the victim as a way of promoting happiness.
- Nozick’s Key Challenge to Rawls
Nozick (1938-2002), an American philosopher argued that the principle way of assessing the position of a country was through respecting individual’s rights. He considered moral rights as natural in that they created a foundation in which individuals and societies constrained and examined their conduct. The concept also forms a basis for political constraining and assessment. The philosopher challenged the Rawls Theory of utilitarianism for displaying an aspect of anti-consequentiality. Rawls argument was that separateness was worthwhile since despite causing losses to an individual, it demonstrated justice to the general welfare. Nozick,s argument, on the other hand, was that rights to individuals possession and economic constraints were meaningful and contributed to the general wellbeing of the social pattern. The scholar went ahead to suggest that individuals varied with the manner in which a person presented his demand for justice. There is validity in Nozick,s work since he is among the best philosophers in the world. Notably, he considered moral rights as natural in that they created a foundation in which individuals and societies thrived. Without exercising human rights, respect among individuals and societies would remain a big dream, thus opening opportunities for all sort of economic vices. The philosopher’s strong defence on individual rights forms a basis for the development of world economies.
- Marx’s Two big Ideas in Relation to Justice
Marx,s ideas have become more relevant in the modern world due to the prevailing economic crisis. Over the years, most scholars ignored these ideas until recently when the world experienced an economic downfall. In his greatest ideas, Marx criticized capitalism within the world economies. He stated that capitalism was a chaotic and destructive system associated with political and social problems, such as loss of jobs by workers. Currently, capital concentration process has dominated the world nations causing economic instability. Other processes affecting the economy include, labour manipulation and spread of monopolies, thus forcing small enterprises out of the market. The overall effect is an increase in the number of poor people in the society leading to an increased level of crime.
The second idea predicted by Marx focused on the problems associated with overproduction in the world economies. He argued that world excess capacity would lead to the closure of manufacturing industries and job losses. Stoian (2014) concurs that failure to resolve this problem of overproduction can lead to an economic failure. For instance, collapsing economies are associated with all sorts of crises in the world. As a result, every government is striving to maintain their economies by adopting the principle of justice. Marx ideas portray the principle of justice in his efforts to promote democracy in property ownership and in his condemnation on wealth centralization.
- Wolterstroff’s Theory of Justice as Rights and the Christian Idea of love
Wolterstoff combines Christian ethics and moral values to form the theory of justice as integrated in rights. The scholar argues that human social rights exist in the presence of natural rights and narrates what it means to have them. In his works, he defines rights in relation to their value on the holder. He explains that secular human rights turn unsuccessful and have a price since one has to offer a theistic account on those privileges. Wolterstoff’s systematic approach on justice reveals that human rights speak for themselves in an inherent possessive manner. Consequently, he relates his approach on justice and human rights to the ancient Christian and Hebrew scriptures.
Wolterstoff continues to defend justice in the new and old testaments and outlines why Romans and Greeks could not act as a good example of his theory of rights. Despite offering good values, justice plays an important role in connecting rights and wrongs to humankind relationship with God (Wolterstorff, 2010). Wolterstoff theory of justice remains an important move towards breaking barriers between human rights and religious doctrines. If such barriers do not exist, then human beings would live in peace and harmony. Human rights plays a vital role in any nation with religious believes since respect and all other virtues prevail in the presence of human rights. Notably, by observing human rights, individuals observe dignity to one another.
- Foucault: “The Plague is Met by Order”
Foucault in his theory “Plague is met by Order,” described distinct measures to be applied on prevention of plague. He identified various processes to stop rapid spread of plague such as quarantine, constant inspection, purification, and registration. The scholar argued that in ancient time, people infected with leprosy were separated from the community to prevent further infection. Individuals developed panic from the plague; thus, discipline remained the only option to such individuals. Therefore, the current corona virus pandemic (COVID-19) has derived control measures from the works of Foucault (Haugaard, 1997). Particularly, various governments and authorities have embraced Foucault’s ideas in an effort to control the Pandemic. Any person confirmed positive of the Corona Virus is subjected to mandatory quarantine for a minimum of fourteen days. Health workers, together with the security team, supervise all the activities in the quarantine centers (Sanche, Lin, & Xu, 2020). All staff are provided with Personal Protective Equipment in order to prevent further infections, which include: face masks, face protectors, overalls, and gloves.
All contacts of the quarantined persons are traced and also placed in isolations. Foucault also advocated for free movement restriction, which currently most governments have embraced as specific regions have closed their boundaries and restrict movement in and out of their jurisdictions (Sanche et al., 2020). The regulation reduces spread of the Corona virus, which is spread from person to person through coughing, sneezing, and skin contact. Further measures to combat COVID 19, as stipulated by Foucault in plague management, are lock-down, hygiene, and sanitization. The practices have been seen to prevent further spread of COVID 19, although it brings forth the issue of hunger to those without food in their premises.
John Rawls was among the most renowned philosopher of politics during the 20th Century. His main interest was in academics writing and school of thought. In the year 1971, he published his theory of justice in an attempt to formulate principles of social justice in the society. The philosopher’s first principle was directed to political institutions and argued that each human being has equal right of access to basic freedom as long as they do not infringe other people’s rights. Rawls incorporated some of human liberties in the United States Bill of Rights, which included; the law process and freedom of speech among others, before formulating rights to private property and corporations (Foundation, 2010). The scholar further supported the idea of limiting basic liberties as a method of controlling liberties of prejudiced groups whose intention was to cause harm to others.
Rawls second principle involved economic and social institutions. He argued that his second principle signified equality after coming to a realization that inequalities were hard to avoid in the society. Such inequalities emerged from personal interests, luck, and social classes in the community due to lack of justice. The philosopher suggested that humanity develop its own ways of reducing inequalities in the environments, and that societies should provide equal job opportunities to its people (Rawls, 1999). Notably, equal and affordable access to education would also help in the elimination of social inequalities. Therefore, economic and social institutions were crucial in protecting freedoms and enhancing their usability.
Rawls in his difference principle focused on maximizing development of the poor in the society by offering equal opportunities and observing minimum levels of income, salaries, or wages. His persistence on the development of primary institutions in the society provides enough evidence that for justice to prevail, basic institutions must operate fairly (Foundation, 2010). From the above analysis, modern world economies should derive their policies through adoption of Rawls Principles for fair and just governance.
Bill C-213 2019: The Canada Pharmacare Act
For more than five decades, Canada has been considering the idea of universal drug plan in order to complement the existing health care. The common argument has been for Canadians to access their prescribed drugs at an affordable fee, particularly if they are delivered in a sustainable and fair manner. Studies have shown that over 20 percent of Canadians have no insurance cover for drug, while others have inadequate coverage (Hoskins, 2019). Therefore, they end up paying from their pocket, which is what Canada Pharmacare Act of 2019 sought to address. The Canada Pharmacare Act outlines the conditions and guidelines of establishing the insurance plans for drug prescriptions. The provision is directed to the law of provision to be met before any drug cash is contributed. The bill moreover, is foreseen to save billions of dollars for the Canadians if enacted into a law (Hoskins, 2019). Although personal bills rarely become a law in the history of Canada, the Canada Pharmacare Act would protect many Canadians from dying due to lack of medication of preventable diseases.
Although achievement of universal pharmacare would attract various costs by the government, it is worth implementing as it saves costs of drug prescriptions. Many Canadians were seen to die prematurely since they do not access medicine as prescribed. According to Hoskins (2019), improvement of the medicine prescription would lead to improved health status, which would then reduce frequent visits to the healthcare units, thus saving billions of money in the overall health care costs. Rawls Theory for Justice advocated for justice for humanity among societies (Rawls, 1999). The Canadian Pharmacare Act agrees with Rawls Theory in providing humane playing ground in health care regardless of the salaries, wages and income levels.
The Bill, after realization that over 60 per cent of citizens in Canada were members of private drug programs, and that 36 per cent were enrolled in drug plans that were sponsored by their employers, recommended the public universal drug plans. The proposal did not discriminate against the contracted, part-time, and self-employed or permanent workers as compared to the previous private plans (Hoskins, 2019). The Bill therefore advocates equally for women, low-pay persons, and youth who were initially left uncovered due to the nature of their job. Rawls Theory introduced a thought known as the veil of ignorance, which demonstrates universal acts of humanity regardless of people’s religion, race, age, sex, abilities, social class, preferences, and life goals.
John Rawls theory of justice in its application, led to the formation of the Canadian Pharmacare Act that was meant to ensure the Canadians enjoy the same universal public health care system. The law led to cost reduction, life-saving elements induced by the government, and humanity among the citizens. The first principle of the model was directed to political institutions and how they would apply justice for fairness, while the second one involved economic and social institutions. The Canadian Pharmacare Act falls in the latter. The Theory was based on the interest of having a single system of principles in a society. The perception forms the basis of the Canadian public drug plan as advocated by the bill that will ensure all Canadians enjoy the same health care system in terms of drugs prescription.
Foundation, C. R. (2010). BRIA 23 3 c Justice as Fairness: John Rawls and His Theory of Justice. Bill of Rights in Action . Retrieved from https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-23-3-c-justice-as-fairness-john-rawls-and-his-theory-of-justice
Hoskins, D. E. (2019). A Prescription for Canada: Achieving Pharmacare for All. Final Report of the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare . Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/public-engagement/external-advisory-bodies/implementation-national-pharmacare/final-report.html
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory Of Justice. The belknap press of harvard university press cambridge, Massachusetts .
Sanche, S., Lin, Y. T., Xu, C., Romero-Severson, E., Hengartner, N., & Ke, R. (2020). High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26(7). DOI: 10.3201/eid2607.200282
Stoian, V. (2014). Property Owning Democracy, Socialism and Justice. Rawlsian and Marxist Perspectives on the Content of Social Justice . Retrieved from https://politicalscience.ceu.edu/sites/politicalscience.ceu.hu/files/attachment/basicpage/764/stoian.pdf
Wolterstorff, N. (2010). Justice: Rights and wrongs. Princeton University Press.