University of Kansas, Spring 2004
Philosophy 555: Justice and Economic Systems
Ben Eggleston—eggleston@ku.edu
Test Preview—Final Exam
The final exam will be given in the room in which we normally meet (2046
Haworth Hall) on Wednesday, May 19, at 10:30 a.m. Although the
officially-scheduled final-exam period is two and a half hours long, the exam
will be administered only in the first hour and a half of the exam period. So,
the final exam will take place from 10:30 a.m. to 12 noon. Please bring a blank
blue book or some blank paper on which to write your answers.
The exam will consist of 100 points’ worth of questions, including at least
60 points’ worth of the following questions. The remaining questions may be
similar to these, or of a different format.
- (20 points:) Rawls notes that his theory, like any contract theory, can be
criticized either (1) in terms of its conception of the morally significant
initial situation or (2) in terms of its derivation of certain principles of
justice from such a situation (or both). What disagreement(s) with, or
criticism(s) of, either or both of these components of Rawls’s theory can be
found in, or inferred from, Nozick’s work?
- (20 points:) Nozick’s entitlement theory is, at least apparently, quite
different in content from Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness. Is it
possible for there to exist in some society, at some point in time, a state of
affairs that satisfies both of these conceptions of justice? If so, is it
possible for this state of affairs to evolve in such a way as to continue to
satisfy both of these conceptions of justice? If so, is it likely that this
would ever happen?
- (20 points:) Rawls and Unger both describe and employ philosophical
methods in which ordinary, common-sense, moral intuitions are taken seriously,
but not followed blindly. What are the similarities and differences between
Rawls’s use of such intuitions and Unger’s use of such intuitions?
- (20 points:) Rawls and Unger both advocate broadly redistributionist
theories. What are the similarities and differences between the practical
implications (e.g., political implications or policy implications) of Rawls’s
theory of justice as fairness and Unger’s theory of Liberationism?
- (20 points:) Nozick is, in some ways, less method-conscious than Unger is.
Suppose one were to rewrite Anarchy, State, and Utopia using the
methodological aspects of Unger's doctrine of Liberationism, but keeping the
substance of Nozick’s view (his entitlement theory, etc.) instead of using the
substantive aspects of Liberationism. In what way, if any, could Nozick make
good use of the methodological aspects of Liberationism?
- (20 points:) According to Nozick, if (but not necessarily only if) he is
right about the entitlement theory’s being part of morality, then there is a
morally permissible way for a condition of anarchy to be transformed into a
state. Now suppose Nozick subscribed to Unger’s substantive moral views,
instead of the entitlement theory. What changes, if any, would have to be made
to his story about how a condition of anarchy could morally permissibly be
transformed into a state?
If you want me to mail your
exam to you after I grade it, just give me an envelope
with your address on it. If you don’t turn in an envelope to me, you can pick up
your graded exam from me any time until the end of May.