You are going to discuss one of the case studies in connection with a theorist (Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Rawls, or Nozick). Before embarking on this exercise, review the relevant discussions and previous case studies you’ve written.
Attachment shows previous assignments
Explain how the theorist you chose would evaluate one of the following cases we analyzed: Welfare, Healthcare, Capital Punishment, or Affirmative Action? 250 words minimal APA
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
You are going to discuss one of the case studies in connection with a theorist (Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Rawls, or Nozick). Before embarking on this exercise, review the relevant discussions and previou
[Type here] Case Analysis: Bob Raised by Wolves My understanding of the case is that Bob, having been raised by wolves, has had no prior contact with other humans or their cultural, social, or political norms. The only life he has known is that which was conditioned by the wolf “society.” Therefore, when he emerges from the wilderness, he has no context for how human beings relate to one another and the moral fabric of society. Bob acts as he would in the wolf community and attacks, kills, and eats a baby as he perceives this to be an easy meal. The crux of Kant’s argument on capital punishment is that it is justified. Proportionality is a fundamental principle of Kant’s argument of equal punishment. From his perspective, providing a criminal with a punishment proportional to his crime is the only way to respect his dignity. Therefore, if we are to respect a criminal and treat him as an autonomous agent, we must hold them accountable for their actions. In this light, someone who kills requires death as an appropriate and proportional punishment. On the other hand, Van den Haag is against capital punishment. His stance is that it is usually unfairly distributed, and it the past innocents have been falsely accused and killed (Van & Hagg, 1969). Moreover, Van den Haag is also not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. In essence, he views capital punishment as a way of dehumanizing a criminal and encouraging their suffering. In applying the philosophers to Bob’s case, Kant would argue that Bod deserves to be killed. The death penalty is the proportional and appropriate punishment that maintains Bob’s autonomy as a person. However, Van den Haag would call for restraint as the death penalty is morally degrading and will promote more suffering. It will dehumanize Bob and will also cause him to suffer more than his victim. The philosopher offering the best solution is Van den Haag as Case Analysis: Bod Raised by Wolves his argument acknowledges that Bob will suffer more as he has no understanding or context for what he has done. Bob ought to be held accountable for his actions and face consequences for killing a baby as he has caused much distress. Although he was raised by wolves and comes up short on comprehension of human ethics, this does not excuse his behavior. However, I do not believe that the death penalty is an appropriate response because it fails to address the underlying causes of the crime (American Civil Liberties Union, 2012). Bob should be integrated into the community and helped to understand the charges against him. Afterward, he should serve a sentence as a form of restoration. References American Civil Liberties Union. (2012). The Case Against the Death Penalty. American Civil Liberties Union; ACLU. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty Van, E., & Hagg, D. (1969). On Deterrence and the Death Penalty. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 60. Retrieved from https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5580&context=jclc Assignment Healthcare Case Analysis The present case pertains to Jim’s decision to forego payment towards his employer’s healthcare program, opting instead to allocate the funds towards the purchase of an automobile. Subsequently, the individual in question developed various chronic ailments due to his unhealthy lifestyle decisions, necessitating ongoing medical intervention (Peikoff, 2007). The case outlines two healthcare alternatives available to Jim: enrolling in a tax-funded universal healthcare system that offers fundamental healthcare standards or enrolling in a fee-for-service system, which necessitates payment for any desired treatment and precludes treatment in the absence of payment. Bradley believes in the value of the community and emphasizes the role of the state in protecting individuals and promoting social justice. He argues that individuals are dependent on society, and society owes them certain benefits, including healthcare. Bradley believes that healthcare is a basic human right, and the state should ensure everyone can access basic healthcare services (Bradley, n.d.). On the other hand, Peikoff advocates individualism and the free market. He argues that the government should not interfere with the healthcare industry, and people should be responsible for their own healthcare needs. Peikoff believes that healthcare is not a right but a commodity that should be earned through individual effort and ability to pay. Bradley would place Jim in the universal healthcare system because he believes society owes everyone basic healthcare services, regardless of their ability to pay. Bradley would argue that Jim made a poor choice by not investing in healthcare and that society should still provide him with basic healthcare services (Bradley, n.d.). On the other hand, Peikoff would place Jim in the pay-for-service system because he believes that individuals are responsible for their Healthcare Case Analysis healthcare needs. Peikoff would argue that Jim should have invested in healthcare earlier and that he should pay for his own treatment. Bradley’s solution to the case is better because it prioritizes social justice and ensures everyone can access basic healthcare services. Peikoff’s solution, on the other hand, only benefits those who can afford to pay for healthcare and ignores the needs of those who cannot afford it (Peikoff, 2007). Bradley’s solution also promotes a sense of community and emphasizes the responsibility of society to care for its members, which is a more humane and compassionate approach. In my opinion, Jim should be covered by the universal healthcare system since all people should have access to essential medical treatment, regardless of their financial situation. It is unfair to deny someone access to healthcare only because they previously made a bad financial choice. A more fair and equitable option that guarantees everyone has access to fundamental medical care is the universal healthcare system. References Bradley, A. (n.d.). Positive rights, negative rights and health care. Retrieved from Jme.bmj.com: https://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/838 Peikoff, L. (2007). Peikoff’s “Healthcare. Retrieved from Aynrand.org: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=13873 Assignment Case Summary The case revolves around two potential welfare recipients: Rebecca and Jimmy. Rebecca is a meth addict who has four children. She is a single parent without any alternative sources of income, and all her money is spent on buying drugs. Therefore, she usually depends on welfare for food and medical treatment. Without this money, she could potentially lose her kids to the welfare system, where they would face worse outcomes. On the other hand, Jimmy is a military veteran who is physically disabled and has PTSD. Jimmy has failed to integrate into society and is unemployed and begs for money. Murray and Walzer’s Theory Murray’s theory is underpinned by the idea that social programs are fundamentally flawed. From his perspective, three laws demonstrate the failure of social programs and their potential to lead to unintended consequences. These three laws include the law of imperfect selection, the law of unintended rewards, and the law of net harm. Murray is keen on emphasizing that social programs lead to behavior changes that are ultimately harmful. For instance, he states that they may reward bad behavior that negatively affects the labor market. On the other hand, Walzer’s theory revolves around the idea that we, as community members, are entitled to certain provisions. We all live based on a social contract that requires community members’ needs to be met. However, there isn’t a particular individual right to welfare, and the specifics of that provision need to be hashed out by the community members. Walzer believes an American welfare state should attend to the needs of its members and distribute goods in proportion to need while recognizing and upholding the underlying equality of membership. Application Of the Philosophers’ Arguments Murray would make the decision not to give any welfare. In Rebecca’s case, Murray would likely argue that her drug use and long-term welfare dependence demonstrate that she has not made the necessary contributions to society to earn welfare benefits. Murray might argue that Rebecca’s children should be placed in foster care to encourage Rebecca to take responsibility for her actions and seek employment. Additionally, in Jimmy’s case, Murray would likely argue that his inability to find employment is due to his inadequacies and that he should not be entitled to welfare. On the other hand, Walzer would likely give welfare to Rebecca. As a community member and a single mother of four children, Walzer would argue that her need for welfare is significant. While her drug use is a concern, Walzer’s view is that a community cannot allow its members to starve to death when there is food available to feed them. Providing welfare to Rebecca would help ensure that her children have access to food and medical treatment, which is important for their well-being. It’s worth noting that Walzer would likely also support efforts to help Rebecca address her drug use and improve her situation in the long term. Philosopher With the Better Solution to The Case The philosopher with the better solution is Walzer. Walzer’s theory emphasizes the importance of recognizing the specific needs of each individual and the obligations that communities have to provide for their members. In the case of Rebecca, while she may have personal issues affecting her ability to use the welfare benefits in the best possible way, her children’s needs for food and medical treatment must be considered. Therefore, welfare benefits should be given to Rebecca with the understanding that they are intended to provide for her children’s basic needs. Individual Action I would recommend giving welfare only to Rebecca. Although Rebecca is a weekend meth user and spends her money on meth, her children depend on welfare to fulfill their basic needs, such as food and medical treatment. Denying her welfare would result in her children being placed in foster homes, which might worsen their lives. However, I would also recommend providing her with drug counseling and rehabilitation programs to help her overcome her addiction and become more self-sufficient. Assignment Human Goodness Aristotle’s thoughts on the text are that the goal of life is for human beings to be happy. However, he believes that we must first determine our purpose to achieve this. Aristotle shapes his argument from this perspective and asserts that similar to the useful objects around us, we, too, must have a purpose (NE Bk. 1, Ch. 7). He follows this thought, arguing that our purpose must be to achieve rationality. However, he further defines human good as a virtue of the soul. Therefore, a good person executes his purpose when he engages in good actions or activities; however, since there is more than one virtue, to be good as a human is to have actions with the best virtues. Developing and practicing good deeds will develop virtuous habits within us (NE Bk. 1, Ch. 6). Aristotle’s thoughts on this topic emphasize the value of good acts. He believes that since we are rational, we should use it to make decisions and ensure that our actions are grounded in reason. His train of thought concludes that if the goal of life is to achieve happiness, it can only be reached by doing good deeds. In addition, he also states that there are higher levels of happiness, and the highest are reserved for those with high moral virtue. Reference Aristotle. (n.d.). Nicomachean Ethics. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.htmlLinks to an external site. New assignment Ethics The selected concept is meta-ethics, a branch of philosophy concerned with moral positions and how we arrive at moral judgements (Kemerling, 2011). The debate in meta-ethics is between those who think ethics seeks testable moral truths and those who think morality is subjective. Moral realism and moral antirealism represent these two sides of the debate. An example of moral realism is believing something, or an action is bad regardless of circumstances. For instance, if murder is wrong, it should not be tolerated under any circumstance, even in capital punishment. In moral realism, concrete moral facts cannot be altered and are either true or false (CrashCourse, 2016). On the other hand, moral antirealism takes the position that there are no moral facts. The essence of the argument here is that morality is not the same for everyone. For example, some cultures have no problem with murder if it is a punishment for a violent crime. In moral antirealism, moral subjectivism is the main focus. By subjective, we mean that it changes depending on someone’s perspective. In this instance, it refers to our attitudes toward certain actions (CrashCourse, 2016). Therefore, the actions in themselves are not right or wrong. Rather, the attitudes we have toward them will label them as either good or bad. References CrashCourse. (2016). Metaethics: Crash Course Philosophy #32.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOoffXFpAlULinks to an external site.. Kemerling, G. (2011). Philosophical Dictionary: Mesos-Misericordiam. http://philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm#mephyLinks to an external site. Assignment Utilitarianism Theory According to the utilitarian moral philosophy of John Stuart Mill, actions are right in proportion to the prospect that they will upsurge happiness and bad in proportion to the prospect that they would have the opposite impact. According to Mill, the only thing that is desirable as a goal is a happiness, which he defined as pleasure and the absence of pain (CrashCourse, 2016). Furthermore, he contended that everything desirable is either intrinsically pleasurable or acts as a means to foster pleasure and forestall suffering. Mill’s theory’s foundation is that morality should be based on promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals. The Greatest Happiness Principle, also referred to as Utility, is the cornerstone of utilitarianism. It infers that an action’s moral worth is determined by its capacity to minimize suffering as well as maximize happiness. For Mill, utilitarianism offered a thorough method for determining what is morally right or wrong. One of the critical aspects of Mill’s moral theory is its emphasis on impartiality. Utilitarianism requires individuals to consider the well-being of everyone affected by an action rather than just their own self-interest. Mill believed this impartial approach to morality was necessary for creating a just and fair society (CrashCourse, 2016). However, it is essential to note that Mill recognized that the concept of happiness is complex and cannot be reduced to simple pleasure-seeking. He agreed that higher pleasures, like those that are intellectual and moral, are preferable to lesser pleasures. In addition, Mill thought that people should be allowed to pursue their happiness as long as it doesn’t hurt others. Reference CrashCourse. (2016, November 22). Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36. [Video]/ YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI Assignment: The categorical imperative of duty and the concept of goodwill form the basis of deontological ethics, commonly known as Kantian ethics. Goodwill, as viewed by Kant, is the world’s only absolute good (CrashCours, 2016). Goodwill is the willingness to do one’s duty without regard for one’s own benefit or pleasure. The categorical imperative is the articulation of moral rule that inspires goodwill. The categorical imperative is a universal moral concept that should be used as a touchstone by all rational beings. The duty-related categorical imperative can be stated in two different ways. The initial version of this idea holds that we should only adhere to a maxim that we can intend to become a universal law. This means that we should always act in the way that we would hope others would act if they were in our shoes (CrashCours, 2016). According to the second version, we should never treat humanity, in ourselves or in others, as a means to an aim but rather as an end in and of itself. This means that we should not exploit other sentient beings and instead treat them with respect. To put it another way, the categorical imperative is the moral law’s way of saying that we should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The moral law directs our conduct, and it is incumbent upon us to fulfill our responsibility to act in conformity with the principles of the categorical imperative (CrashCours, 2016). As a result, goodwill is the motivation to fulfill one’s duty simply because it is one’s duty, as enunciated in the categorical imperative. Reference CrashCours. (2016, November 15). Kant & Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw Assignment If someone were to ask me to explain the “veil of ignorance “, I would describe it as a thought experiment explained by John Rawls in his popular book “A Theory of Justice”. This political philosopher explored how humans would create a just and fair society without information on their social position, abilities, or status in that community. In such a case, human beings are behind a “veil of ignorance” because they do not know their social position and characteristics. Therefore, this ensures that they remain objective in creating the principles of fairness and justice in their community (Rawls, 1971). Moreover, Rawls claimed behind the “veil of ignorance”, humans would select principles guaranteeing fair distribution of wealth and resources, equal opportunities, and fundamental liberties. Besides, Rawls asserted that the veil of ignorance develops two principles of justice and fairness. The first principle claims that everyone has fundamental liberties, including religious rights and freedom of speech. On the other hand, the second principle explains that any economic and social inequalities should be organized to assist the disadvantaged members of society. Reference Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice (Excerpts). Retrieved from https://genius.com/John-rawls-a-theory-of-justice-excerpts-annotatedLinks to an external site.. Assignment: The American healthcare system is a topic of discussion among both politicians and the general public. In his article “Positive Rights, Negative Rights, and Healthcare,” Andrew Bradley examines the libertarian and individualist view that healthcare should be regarded as a negative right. Bradley argues that the concept of positive and negative rights is flawed and that both categories of rights can impose obligations on third parties. Additionally, he asserts that healthcare is a human right and should be regarded as a positive right. Bradley’s libertarian and individualist perspective on rights contends that only negative rights are legitimate. In contrast, positive rights impose obligations on individuals to provide products to others or pay taxes used for redistribution. Since it necessitates taxation and redistribution, healthcare is viewed as a positive right. Bradley rejects this viewpoint, arguing that healthcare is a human right that is linked to the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Bradley, n.d.). Bradley’s article is relevant to the current healthcare debate in the United States, where politicians and policymakers are divided over how best to provide healthcare coverage for all citizens. The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, expanded healthcare coverage and improved access to healthcare services. However, its future remains uncertain, with some policymakers calling for its repeal or replacement. In conclusion, Bradley’s article offers insights into the debate about healthcare as a right and the differences between positive and negative rights. The article’s arguments are relevant to the ongoing discussion about healthcare in the United States and the importance of providing universal access to healthcare services. Reference Bradley, A. (n.d.). Positive rights, negative rights and health care. Retrieved from Jme.bmj.com: https://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/838