234570

Akangsha Dogra .

Started on Friday, 28 May 2021, 2:30 PM

State Finished
Completed on Friday, 28 May 2021, 6:30 PM
Time taken 4 hours
Grade Not yet graded

Information

Instructions:
1. Answer any THREE (3) questions. All questions carry equal marks.
2. Permitted Materials: The Reading Materials of the Course on the Learning Platform

Response history

Step Time Action State

1 28/05/21, 14:30 Started

2 28/05/21, 18:30 Seen

3 28/05/21, 18:30 Attempt finished

Question 1

Not answered

Marked out of 20.00

1. What does Rawls criticise as an intuitionistic theory of justice? How is this different from his criticism of utilitarian theories of justice? Illustrate with
examples.

Response history

Step Time Action State Marks

Step Time Action State Marks

1 28/05/21, 14:30 Started Not yet answered

2 28/05/21, 18:30 Attempt finished Not answered

Question 2

Not answered

Marked out of 20.00

2. What is the impact of reordering Rawls' principles of justice? Illustrate how the basic structure of society may be just under one arrangement but
unjust under the other.

Response history

Step Time Action State Marks

Step Time Action State Marks

1 28/05/21, 14:30 Started Not yet answered

2 28/05/21, 18:30 Attempt finished Not answered

Question 3

Complete

Marked out of 20.00

3. Does the Hart-Dworkin debate on law as rules OR law as principles and rights affect the relationship between law and justice?

Hart interest in the relationship between law &justice is reflected throughout. Nevertheless, not in abstract theory. A similar line of assessment of fair
and unfair ties to assessment to justice in terms of an example of compulsory school and segregated public facility which is widely apparent (by Cohen
and Sen)The connection between justice and fairness seem a bit like Rawls. The judgement of fairness poses a question of " how " distribution of
burden &benefit and compensation. The concept of justice closely related to law There is point of caution not confuse law and morality--morality
different from social and legal rules

Dworkin guards liberal theory which needs to be normative and conceptual. The normative theory consists of -legislation, adjudication and compliance
which is generally based on political and moral philosophy and conceptual will draw from logic and metaphysics. Moreover, people have right over the
state which arises before right created by legislation. Dworkin argue against the first principle of right (right to equality is foundational and liberty is
derivative of it)
Dworkin response to hart -a question which is encountered regularly in practical aspect, which is termed as three persistent questions by hart
1. Nature of law - threat backed -relation between legal obligation and the law - the starting point of Austin
2. Morality backed
3. Law in general sense In general sense hart talks about the concept of law and positivist concept however Dworkin read hart as positivist and
accordingly develop theory. Moreover, the claim of Dworkin against hart is not effectively explained three persistent questions.

Questioning Rule of Recognition which is considered as ultimate by hart. However, Dworkin inquired about the validity criteria or simple acceptance
would do. The determination of rules, principles and policies is a significant step in the process.

-Policies- way to achieve the definite end

-Dworkin contention was to distinguish principles that implicitly includes policies from rules. Furthermore, he refrains from using the word "standard" as
it means the same thing as rules. Rig v Palmer presents us with a dichotomy for the application of law as rule(certainty in law) and law as principles
(benefit from own wrong).Concerning the view of hart on the Heningness case which provides us that extra rules such as standard by the judge cannot be
applied and can only apply if it is a precedent. However, Dworkin provides a different view on a similar fact situation is when judge applies principle as
consequence from own logic which is different from the rule is point judge goes beyond. Hence normally judge apply both rules and standard. The
famous approach of Dworkin is the Applicability of rules in all or nothing fashion but principles applied with help of conclusions(weight-based
decision).
Another crucial facet put forth is of original position which according to Dworkin is not justified and claims that principle should be good enough to
demand compliance rather than abstraction.
Finally, the adjudication aspect concerning rules affects the relationship between law and justice. He relates the notion of principles with the above-
mentioned embarrassing question. However, the distinction made by him in the context of inclusive and exclusive positivism misinterprets the question
to some extent.

Response history

Step Time Action State Marks

Step Time Action State Marks

1 28/05/21, Started Not yet

14:30 answered

2 28/05/21, Saved: * Hart interest in the relationship between law &justice is reflected throughout. Nevertheless, not Answer
18:30 in abstract theory. A similar line of assessment of fair and unfair ties to assessment to justice in terms of saved
an example of compulsory school and segregated public facility which is widely apparent (by Cohen and
Sen)The connection between justice and fairness seem a bit like Rawls. The judgement of fairness poses a
question of " how " distribution of burden &benefit and compensation. The concept of justice closely
related to law There is point of caution not confuse law and morality--morality different from social and
legal rules Dworkin guards liberal theory which needs to be NORMATIVE AND CONCEPTUAL. The
normative theory consists of -legislation, adjudication and compliance which is generally based on
political and moral philosophy and conceptual will draw from logic and metaphysics. Moreover, people
have right over the state which arises before right created by legislation. Dworkin argue against the first
principle of right (right to equality is foundational and liberty is derivative of it) Dworkin response to hart
-a question which is encountered regularly in practical aspect, which is termed as three persistent
questions by hart * Nature of law - threat backed -relation between legal obligation and the law - the
starting point of Austin * Morality backed * Law in general sense In general sense hart talks about the
concept of law and positivist concept however Dworkin read hart as positivist and accordingly develop
theory. Moreover, the claim of Dworkin against hart is not effectively explained three persistent
questions. Questioning RULE OF RECOGNITION which is considered as ultimate by hart. However,
Dworkin inquired about the validity criteria or simple acceptance would do. The determination of rules,
principles and policies is a significant step in the process. -Policies- way to achieve the definite end -
Dworkin contention was to distinguish principles that implicitly includes policies from rules.
Furthermore, he refrains from using the word "standard" as it means the same thing as rules. RIG V
PALMER presents us with a dichotomy for the application of law as rule(certainty in law) and law as
principles (benefit from own wrong).Concerning the view of hart on the Heningness case which provides
us that extra rules such as standard by the judge cannot be applied and can only apply if it is a
precedent. However, Dworkin provides a different view on a similar fact situation is when judge applies
principle as consequence from own logic which is different from the rule is point judge goes beyond.
Hence normally judge apply both rules and standard. The famous approach of Dworkin is the
Applicability of rules in all or nothing fashion but principles applied with help of conclusions(weight-
based decision). Another crucial facet put forth is of original position which according to Dworkin is not
justified and claims that principle should be good enough to demand compliance rather than abstraction.
Finally, the adjudication aspect concerning rules affects the relationship between law and justice. He
relates the notion of principles with the above-mentioned embarrassing question. However, the distinction
made by him in the context of inclusive and exclusive positivism misinterprets the question to some
extent.

3 28/05/21, Attempt finished Complete

18:30
Question 4

Complete

Marked out of 20.00

4. Is Cohen right to insist that in a ‘just society’ individuals must practice Rawls' two principles of justice? Why?

The core of a just society is no greed which is a thread of the argument of Cohen. The idea of egocentrism is against the idea of justice which is implicit
in the second principle of Rawls, specifically 2b which allows inequalities if it is for the least advantaged. Hence, inequality is considered just. In term of
greed, there are two factors -innate human nature and other is sociological factor and Cohen is more concerned with sociological factor. This further
impact the foundation of a social constructivist model of human right.The concept of homo- economics who is more concerned with self-interest as
positing by Adam smith provide the innate nature of human which is countered by Cohen.
The "just society" is merely a facade as principle 2a and 2b clearly present us with the anti egalitarian position which is against the notion of a just
society and ultimately results in an unjust and unequal society. The distinguish between political and personal as enunciated by Rawls cause lot of
problem, especially to a feminist perspective. Hence, put forward "personal is political" which entails personal choice shapes the political idea. This
aspect is wholly ignored by Rawls as apparent in lack of familial concern, division of labour etc.
The role of the family is not very clear from the stance which is put forward by Rawls . Initially, the family was acknowledged as mot crucial institution,
later it was compared with other institution such as universities, hospital etc( family is a non-coercive institution). This makes the position of Rawls more
ambiguous which is one of the major contentions of Susan Okin. This also brings the question of the application of Rawls theory to Institution or
Individual, which basically being forth Rawls idea of more importance to the state and less to society.
The basic structure of Rawls which is the hook of the theory of justice, according to Cohen is more of the coercive institution of the state which is the
implicit indifference principle. This is also influenced by the material incentives which presume talented people will work more provided handsomely
paid and produce could be distributed to worse off. This concept which promotes selfishness is averse to 'just society' as the principle of justice apply to
all individual.
The goal of distributive justice could not only be achieved by the structural theory of justice. The other approach can be ethos driven which is functioned
on some principle-for example Gandhi philosophy of truth and non-voilence can be the case rather than a principle of justice which provide leeway to
inequalities. On a similar line of thought, the principle of justice Rawls will not be able to attain the desired goal when the personal ethos does not align
with the principles. The major critique of cohen's original position produces a conception of justice which is less egalitarian than it should be.
However, one of the concerns concerning cohen claim is that it fails to account for moral pluralism which is the essence of a democratic society.
However, Rawls constructed theory to incorporate such pluralism.

Response history

Step Time Action State Marks

Step Time Action State Marks

1 28/05/21, Started Not yet

14:30 answered

2 28/05/21, Saved: The core of a just society is no greed which is a thread of the argument of Cohen. The idea of Answer
18:30 egocentrism is against the idea of justice which is implicit in the second principle of Rawls, specifically saved
2b which allows inequalities if it is for the least advantaged. Hence, inequality is considered just. In term
of greed, there are two factors -innate human nature and other is sociological factor and Cohen is more
concerned with sociological factor. This further impact the foundation of a social constructivist model of
human right.The concept of homo- economics who is more concerned with self-interest as positing by
Adam smith provide the innate nature of human which is countered by Cohen. The "just society" is
merely a facade as principle 2a and 2b clearly present us with the anti egalitarian position which is
against the notion of a just society and ultimately results in an unjust and unequal society. The
distinguish between political and personal as enunciated by Rawls cause lot of problem, especially to a
feminist perspective. Hence, put forward "personal is political" which entails personal choice shapes the
political idea. This aspect is wholly ignored by Rawls as apparent in lack of familial concern, division of
labour etc. The role of the family is not very clear from the stance which is put forward by Rawls .
Initially, the family was acknowledged as mot crucial institution, later it was compared with other
institution such as universities, hospital etc( family is a non-coercive institution). This makes the position
of Rawls more ambiguous which is one of the major contentions of Susan Okin. This also brings the
question of the application of Rawls theory to Institution or Individual, which basically being forth Rawls
idea of more importance to the state and less to society. The basic structure of Rawls which is the hook of
the theory of justice, according to Cohen is more of the coercive institution of the state which is the
implicit indifference principle. This is also influenced by the material incentives which presume talented
people will work more provided handsomely paid and produce could be distributed to worse off. This
concept which promotes selfishness is averse to 'just society' as the principle of justice apply to all
individual. The goal of distributive justice could not only be achieved by the structural theory of justice.
The other approach can be ethos driven which is functioned on some principle-for example Gandhi
philosophy of truth and non-voilence can be the case rather than a principle of justice which provide
leeway to inequalities. On a similar line of thought, the principle of justice Rawls will not be able to attain
the desired goal when the personal ethos does not align with the principles. The major critique of cohen's
original position produces a conception of justice which is less egalitarian than it should be. However,
one of the concerns concerning cohen claim is that it fails to account for moral pluralism which is the
essence of a democratic society. However, Rawls constructed theory to incorporate such pluralism.

3 28/05/21, Attempt finished Complete

18:30
Question 5

Complete

Marked out of 20.00

5. Does Okin or Cooter make the more compelling criticism of Rawls’ theory of justice? Are these criticisms independent of each other or related?

The Okin criticism revolves around the lack of discussion of the influence either on the internal structure or on family or their relation with the wider
society which is presented through various arguments. One of them is "political is personal" and the goal of a just society cannot be achieved with
inequalities (implicit indifference principle)
The other major contention is the level of abstraction, theory entails will defeat the purpose of application of the theory of justice.
Orignal position discards the experiences of women due to veil of ignorance
Discrepancy evident in Rawls proposition -despite the inclusion of family as a fundamental unit which was later changed to comparing family with
other institution and making women and family beyond the sphere of justice which was also the major argument of Cohen.
exclude the subject of the division of labour and ancillary issue such as childbearing

The analysis by Cooter is more influenced by economics and provide mathematical and statistical rigour to the legal thought process.
Parallel comparison between economic( core -efficiency ) and law (core- justice)
Rawls usage of Pareto and Pigou was to formulate an economic argument that is based on an economic formula of calculus that influences Cooter. The
crucial aspect which is highlighted by Cooter is a difference in the formula for efficiency and justice.
The discourse of justice is actually between utilitarian efficiency and market efficiency

The criticism of Okin and Cooter are independent according to the best of my knowledge, because of dissimilar aspects dealt by each philosopher.
Additionally, Okin criticism seems to be more compelling in comparison to Cooter. At the same time, we cannot fail to notice the significance of Cooter
analysis and bringing unique economical dimension to the theory of Justice.
The evaluation by Okin is quite compelling because of the following reasons:

Just society cannot possible without considering majority population concern (Women) and the universal element of Rawls theory cannot afford to
contain bias.
Rawls visionary idea lacks access to the private sector which is crucial in preserving the social-political superstructure by subjugating majority of the
population
Experiences are abstracted out due to the veil of ignorance because of which informed decision cannot be taken in terms of formulation of a just
society.
Methodology(Abstraction) for the theory of justice is questioned which is not only pertinent to women but also other sections of society as well.
Furthermore, this brings the problem of the implementation of theory in reality.

Response history

Step Time Action State Marks

Step Time Action State Marks

1 28/05/21, Started Not yet

14:30 answered

2 28/05/21, Saved: The Okin criticism revolves around the lack of discussion of the influence either on the internal Answer
18:30 structure or on family or their relation with the wider society which is presented through various saved
arguments. One of them is "political is personal" and the goal of a just society cannot be achieved with
inequalities (implicit indifference principle) * The other major contention is the level of abstraction,
theory entails will defeat the purpose of application of the theory of justice. * Orignal position discards
the experiences of women due to veil of ignorance * Discrepancy evident in Rawls proposition -despite
the inclusion of family as a fundamental unit which was later changed to comparing family with other
institution and making women and family beyond the sphere of justice which was also the major
argument of Cohen. * exclude the subject of the division of labour and ancillary issue such as
childbearing * The analysis by Cooter is more influenced by economics and provide mathematical and
statistical rigour to the legal thought process. * Parallel comparison between economic( core -efficiency )
and law (core- justice) * Rawls usage of Pareto and Pigou was to formulate an economic argument that is
based on an economic formula of calculus that influences Cooter. The crucial aspect which is highlighted
by Cooter is a difference in the formula for efficiency and justice. * The discourse of justice is actually
between utilitarian efficiency and market efficiency The criticism of Okin and Cooter are independent
according to the best of my knowledge, because of dissimilar aspects dealt by each philosopher.
Additionally, Okin criticism seems to be more compelling in comparison to Cooter. At the same time, we
cannot fail to notice the significance of Cooter analysis and bringing unique economical dimension to the
theory of Justice. The evaluation by Okin is quite compelling because of the following reasons: * Just
society cannot possible without considering majority population concern (Women) and the universal
element of Rawls theory cannot afford to contain bias. * Rawls visionary idea lacks access to the private
sector which is crucial in preserving the social-political superstructure by subjugating majority of the
population * Experiences are abstracted out due to the veil of ignorance because of which informed
decision cannot be taken in terms of formulation of a just society. * Methodology(Abstraction) for the
theory of justice is questioned which is not only pertinent to women but also other sections of society as
well. Furthermore, this brings the problem of the implementation of theory in reality.

3 28/05/21, Attempt finished Complete

18:30
Question 6

Not answered

Marked out of 20.00

6. Does the principle of national responsibility produce global justice? Is Rawls’ proposals for a realistic utopia in the ‘Laws of the Peoples’ more likely
to do so?

Response history

Step Time Action State Marks

Step Time Action State Marks

1 28/05/21, 14:30 Started Not yet answered

2 28/05/21, 18:30 Attempt finished Not answered