You must answer three of the questions below and submit your typed answer. Question four or question five (or both) must be one of your three answers. Be sure to demonstrate a clear understanding of theories and critical thinking skills and give as much detail in your answer and concrete examples as you can. You may use lectures, course readings and online philosophy resources as well as news sources for current news. Question One: Last fall, the City of Minneapolis released a proposal called “Working Families Agenda: Earned Sick Time and Fair Scheduling”. Read the 2-page document here at this site: https://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@cped/documents/webcontent/wcms1p-148471.pdf In the draft, the City is proposing new laws for all businesses that would give workers rights and freedoms including sick leave, adequate rest, full-time work, fair and predictable schedules and equal fairness in wages. The most controversial part of the proposal relates to predictable scheduling, which has been removed from the proposal now. The City is responding to complaints from workers of discrimination in wages, last minute schedule changes that are difficult for child care and transportation, retaliation for workers who speaking up, lack of sick and rest leave and inadequate access to full time work. Some businesses support the fundamental ideas of the proposal and have asked for time to input practical solutions. Other businesses reject the ideas of this draft proposal, arguing that it is too expensive, impractical or inappropriate for government to create these legal mandates. For this question, I want you to choose the strongest theory you have heard so far to argue either FOR or AGAINST the City of Minneapolis mandating the rules outlined in the Working Families Agenda. Give at least 3 reasons why you would either support this or reject this kind of legislation using your strongest theory. Question Two: Last week, the State of Minnesota budget forecast is anticipating 900 Million dollars in surplus money above the projected revenues for the next biennium. Read about the details here: https://www.startribune.com/Minnesota-has-$-900-million-budget-surplus-lower-than-expected/370261981/ This surplus falls to Governor Dayton and the Minnesota Legislature to decide on what to do with this money. Throughout this course, you have been learning about theories of justice, and one primary way to evaluate the values of justice for a society is how that society spends money. So the debates over this surplus give a real measure of how Minnesotans think about justice. They will need to decide before July. One central debate is whether or not to spend that surplus on public programs such as higher education (K-12 funding and MnSCU and UMN for freezing tuition and salaries), early childhood development (pre-K and all-day Kindergarten), transportation (roads, bridges, new public trains) and parks OR refund that money to tax payers and businesses in the form of lowering taxes (income, sales and corporate), tax refunds (= $350 per person) or tuition vouchers (for private schools). Some support a combination of the above. Of the theories we have discussed, they all relate in some way to the distribution of wealth and the role of government. Three theories of justice we have discussed – Utilitarianism, Libertarianism and Capabilities Approach – specifically make arguments for the just role of government and distribution of wealth in society. Of these three theories of justice, how would each of these decide on how to spend this money in a just way? Be sure to include similarities and differences and give at least one very clear example. Question Three: Over the past few years, the Federal Supreme Court has taken up the question of “affirmative action” policies in the United States as related to education and hiring practices. For any student not familiar with affirmative action, read the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on affirmative action: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/ In short, affirmative action policies allow public institutions, businesses and universities to consider race and gender (as two of many factors) in hiring and admissions practices as a way to 1) correct historical injustices against women and minorities in hiring and admissions and 2) foster diversity in business and education that is seen by some as morally good. Thus, theoretically, if two applicants are equal in qualifications, the public institution, business or university may consider their race or gender in admissions or hiring. A good example of Affirmative Action is related to our own building of the new Vikings Stadium. The Minnesota Sports Facilities Association (MSFA) and the Minnesota Vikings are building a new Vikings Stadium that will cost almost $1 billion dollars and open in 2016. The stadium will require millions in taxes. Mortenson Construction Company won the contract and will oversee the project. In agreement with MSFA and the Vikings, Mortenson has made this statement about hiring women, people with disabilities and minority-owned companies and workers: “Construction of the new stadium will require nearly 4.3 million work hours and will involve 7,500 tradespeople from 19 different trades and hundreds of local subcontractors and suppliers. In addition, the MSFA and the Vikings have established a Targeted Business Program that sets an 11% and 9% goal for construction contracts for the project to be awarded to women – and minority-owned business enterprises, respectively. The stadium project has also set construction workforce goals for utilization of women and minorities during construction of 32% minority and 6% women participation.” In Minnesota, for a business to qualify as a “targeted group” for the Targeted Business Program, it must have 51% or more of its business owned and operated by women, people with disabilities or by a “targeted” minority group including African-American, American-Indian, Asian-American, Alaska-Native or Hispanic-American. For this question, I want you to compare and contrast the theories of Libertarianism and Rawls’ Political Liberalism (Justice as Fairness) whether these mandates (9-11% companies; 6 and 32% workers) are just or not. First, I want you to make an argument against these mandates for the Vikings stadium using the theory of libertarianism. Second, I want you to make an argument for these mandates using John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness. Be sure to include in your reasons the main points of these theories and relate it directly to the Vikings Stadium example. Third, which of these views do you agree with and why? Question Four: In chapter 9 of Justice, Michael Sandel makes a communitarian argument for moral obligations of loyalty and solidarity to political communities (family; country; etc…). In light of these loyalties and solidarities and consistent with virtue ethics, how does Sandel think about reparations? Should, in Sandel’s view, a society support reparation for people who are victims of historical injustices? (Be careful here; his view is somewhat vague). Given Sandel’s personal context, how do you think his personal context shapes his views of reparations? In chapter 4 of What does Justice Look Like, Waziyatawin argues for reparations for the Dakota people. Why, in her view, are reparations for Dakota people necessary for co-existence and justice in Minnesota? What reasons does she give? What, in your view, is different between Sandel’s views on reparations and Waziyatawin’s? Question Five: Explain Waziyatawin’s statement: “Just short of breaking camp.” What she mean by this statement given the history of genocide and land theft against Dakota people in Minnesota? What does she offer as practical ways that Dakota people and white Minnesotans can co-exist in a just society? Be sure to give details. Do you agree with Waziyatawin or not? Give three reasons to support your answer. Question Six: Many of you have probably hear about the global refugee crisis that has surpassed the crisis during World War 2. Most of the refugees are Syrian, fleeing the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic State (aka: ISIS, ISIL) that have caused over 200,000 deaths over the last 5 years and the displacement of 10million people. You can see the data on 4.3million Syrian refugees here: https://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php Global support for refugees has been declared by many leaders and communities. Most refugees are entering Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, as well as European countries. Some European countries are violating international laws on human rights by refusing entry to refugees into their country. Remember that the UN Convention and Protocol on Refugees (1951/1967) establishes the right of refugees to enter other countries and receive equal rights and resources. The United States has been for many decades politically, militarily and economically involved in the Middle East and a longtime beneficiary member of the United Nations. The United Nations and the international community has called on the USA to share in the responsibility of the crisis by resettling at a minimum 65,000 Syrian refugees this year. This is a very small percentage of the 4.3million refugees given the huge size and economy of the United States. So far, over 85,000 Syrian refugees have applied for resettlement in the United States and only about 2,000 have been resettled. President Obama has pledged 10,000 (only about 15% of what is being asked), yet 29 governors of 29 states in the USA have said that they would deny admission and support for Syrian refugees, whereas only 9 states (including Minnesota) have expressed support for relocating refugees. This is a growing national issue, with presidential candidates taking opposing sides as well. The question here is: How would Immanuel Kant’s Deontology and Virginia Held’s Ethics of Care argue for the moral obligation of the United States to resettle refugees? What are three differences between how these two theories support this obligation? Question Seven: Part of living in a just society is asking the people to judge laws and decisions from moral perspectives. Theories of justice and help us do that. Consider the case of Tracy Lyn Latimer (below). After you have read the details, consider two theories we have studied: Kant’s duties and rights (deontology) and Ethics of Care. Would Kant consider Robert Latimer’s decision a violation of our categorical duties to other people? Why or why not? What about the theory of Ethics of Care? Would Robert Latimer’s decision be considered an act of care? Finally, do you agree with the punishment given to Robert Latimer – why or why not? Give three clear reasons for or against the conviction of Robert Latimer demonstrating your ability to apply one of these ethical theories.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]