Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Reward and Punishment

From Thiroux and Krasemann:
Relationships among Reward, Punishment and Justice:
Three theories of Reward and Punishment:

1. Retribution, Retributive Justice (107, Reward 113-114, Punish 118-120).
Kaplan: Compare what the authors claim for Exodus 21:24-25 with the commentary to the Torah on these passages. Apparently, they are missing the point of the passage.

2. Utilitarianism (107, Reward 114, Punish 120-123).

3. Restitution (107, Rawls/Distribution of Wealth: 114-116, Punish 124-125).
Arguments for and against the above.
Criteria for rewarding and punishing (Reward 108-113, Punish 116-126).

John Rawls' Theory of Justice:
The Equity Principle: "Each person has equal rights to maximum liberty comparable with the same amount of liberty for everyone else. In other words there must be freedom for all" (115).
The Difference Principle: "Any equality is permissible to the extent that it is to everyone's advantage, including the people at the bottom of society's ranks, and that it arises under conditions of equal opportunity" (115).
Kaplan: How does the difference principle contrast with what Locke offers? Do both seek to acheive the same ends, albeit through different means? I suggest the difference lies in Rawls' fundamental Kantian approach (authoritarian, rule based). Locke's system relies upon "Natural Law," while Rawls' is based upon a system of synthetic laws or rules dictated by elites. Look up Rawls' notion of the "veil of ignorance" (linked above). Compare Kant's argumentation and use of the Categorical Imperative. 

"Nozick, who is a libertarian, seeks to maximize individual liberty and minimize or even eliminate any violation of liberty by government or others. He believes that the wealth of a society is the sum of individual's wealth. Rawls, on the other hand, who is considered a welfare liberal or welfare capitalist, believes that wealth of society is society's wealth and that all members of society cooperate in creating that wealth by making it possible for individuals to earn the wealth they do because of mutually agreed upon fundamental rules of society" (116).

Locke, Jefferson and Nozick (115-116).

Kaplan: It is interesting that in the beginning of the chapter the authors consider Rawl's theory a key objective, but Jefferson, Locke and Nozick are not underscored. Also, in their conclusion to this section (131), Rawls is contrasted with Nozick (who is called a "libertarian" but no such contrast is presented between Rawls and Locke. Is Locke (or Jefferson) a libertarian?

Relationship of Rights to Moral Duties?

Kaplan: Compare Locke, Jefferson and Hutchinson. Contrast these against Kant and Rawls.

No comments:

Post a Comment