234572

ANUPAM SHIVAM .

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

State Finished
Completed on Friday, 28 May 2021, 6:30 PM
Time taken 3 hours 59 mins
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, 18:29 Seen

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

Question 1

Complete

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.

1- This question can be divided into two parts,criticism of intutitionistic theory of Justice and how it is different from criticism of utilitarian theories of
Justice.

(a)Intutionistic theory of Justice- Criticism

*Intutionsim - Ethical dilemas paly a cricual role in this. According to this theory, it is the intutitive awareness of the values that creates Ethical
dilemas.Moral truth are discoverd through the excercise of the common sense.

Crticism- The major criticims of the Instutionistic theory is that it is based on the subjective prefernce of the Individual with respect to concept of right
and good.Differnt perosn have differennt views and taste in respect to moral and political dilemas and it becomes quite hard to reconcile all those
preferecnes and choices to arrive at a particular theory. If two Individual come to a same choice with respect to a particuar instution then it isdifficult to
say that whether this interaction is because of the chance or luck or because of facing same life expereinces.
For exmaple- The struggle of the lGBT community to have right to same sex marriage is in contituous debate in recent times. We are observing many
petition are being filled in the court for their recognisition of their relationship as marraige but at the same time we see the within the LGBT community,
the privileged LGBTq activist argued that they dont not want to subscribe with the tradational thinking of the marraige. They think that alternative to
maariage instutution , they should be given the right to civil union only. Same time, we observe that rich upper class peple have staretd rejecting the idea
of marraige. We can see that their intutuion( upper class priviliged and rich LGBTQ Community activist) is interacting because of the changes of the
circumatances from which earlier they were part of it.Under the Institutionism, you observe various kinds of tastes and prefercnes which is diffuclt to
work with.

Under the modern framework, there is need to reach on particular consensus with respect to what is right.Therfore, the Rawls has argued for the original
position because it is necessary to reach on a agreement because if we already knoe our position in the society then there is no incetive to reach on an
agreement. He also talks about Veil of Ignornaqce under which under which a person doesnot know the place in the scoiety,their natural or acquired
abilities,what conception of good they have , political,cultural,economical characteristics of their own society.
They only know they are in the circumstances of the Justice and each capable of sense of justice.
Rawlsian crtiticism of Utilitarisn theory of Justice -

When we talk about Utilitarisim, Bentham Comes in our mind who strongly advocated this concept. It talks about the greatest happines for the greatest
number of the people. But, rawls was not happy with the principle as he wants to put Individual rights at a high pedestal. Under the UTilitrism, the liberty
and the dignity of the Individual can be put at stake for the happiness of thye greatest number of People. for example, Salvery can be justified on this
prinicple as it is for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people but it is violating the rights and dignity of the Individual.He advocated for the
happiness of each Individual in place of aggregate happiness of all. But according to him, it doesnot mean that every right shall trump the socisal good.For
example, According to Utilitarism concept, many legilsation that protects the interest and the rights of the workers must be scapped as it is diminishing
the national Income and not is not in consonace with the greattest happiness of the all but John Rawls will adcovate such type of legilsation as it protects
the dignity and liberty of the Individuals.
According to him, justice is the first virtue of social system as the truth is the virtue of the system of thought. Also he argued that it is immaterial how
much an institution is efficient , if it is unjust , then it must be abloshied. For example- the North Korea. Its instituion is sufficinet but its doesnot value
the dignity and liberty ofthe Individual.Then, thistype of Institution, like North Korea, should be abolished.

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: 1- This question can be divided into two parts,criticism of intutitionistic theory of Justice and Answer
18:29 how it is different from criticism of utilitarian theories of Justice. (A)INTUTIONISTIC THEORY OF saved
JUSTICE- CRITICISM *INTUTIONSIM - Ethical dilemas paly a cricual role in this. According to this
theory, it is the intutitive awareness of the values that creates Ethical dilemas.Moral truth are discoverd
through the excercise of the common sense. CRTICISM- The major criticims of the Instutionistic theory
is that it is based on the subjective prefernce of the Individual with respect to concept of right and
good.Differnt perosn have differennt views and taste in respect to moral and political dilemas and it
becomes quite hard to reconcile all those preferecnes and choices to arrive at a particular theory. If two
Individual come to a same choice with respect to a particuar instution then it isdifficult to say that
whether this interaction is because of the chance or luck or because of facing same life expereinces. For
exmaple- The struggle of the lGBT community to have right to same sex marriage is in contituous debate
in recent times. We are observing many petition are being filled in the court for their recognisition of their
relationship as marraige but at the same time we see the within the LGBT community, the privileged
LGBTq activist argued that they dont not want to subscribe with the tradational thinking of the marraige.
They think that alternative to maariage instutution , they should be given the right to civil union only.
Same time, we observe that rich upper class peple have staretd rejecting the idea of marraige. We can see
that their intutuion( upper class priviliged and rich LGBTQ Community activist) is interacting because of
the changes of the circumatances from which earlier they were part of it.Under the Institutionism, you
observe various kinds of tastes and prefercnes which is diffuclt to work with. Under the modern
framework, there is need to reach on particular consensus with respect to what is right.Therfore, the
Rawls has argued for the original position because it is necessary to reach on a agreement because if we
already knoe our position in the society then there is no incetive to reach on an agreement. He also talks
about Veil of Ignornaqce under which under which a person doesnot know the place in the scoiety,their
natural or acquired abilities,what conception of good they have , political,cultural,economical
characteristics of their own society. They only know they are in the circumstances of the Justice and each
capable of sense of justice. RAWLSIAN CRTITICISM OF UTILITARISN THEORY OF JUSTICE -
WHen we talk about Utilitarisim, BENTHAM Comes in our mind who strongly advocated this concept. It
talks about the greatest happines for the greatest number of the people. But, rawls was not happy with the
principle as he wants to put Individual rights at a high pedestal. Under the UTilitrism, the liberty and the
dignity of the Individual can be put at stake for the happiness of thye greatest number of People. for
example, SALVERY CAn be justified on this prinicple as it is for the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people but it is violating the rights and dignity of the Individual.He advocated for the
happiness of each Individual in place of aggregate happiness of all. But according to him, it doesnot mean
that every right shall trump the socisal good.For example, According to Utilitarism concept, many
legilsation that protects the interest and the rights of the workers must be scapped as it is diminishing the
national Income and not is not in consonace with the greattest happiness of the all but John Rawls will
adcovate such type of legilsation as it protects the dignity and liberty of the Individuals. According to
him, justice is the first virtue of social system as the truth is the virtue of the system of thought. Also he
argued that it is immaterial how much an institution is efficient , if it is unjust , then it must be abloshied.
For example- the North Korea. Its instituion is sufficinet but its doesnot value the dignity and liberty ofthe
Individual.Then, thistype of Institution, like North Korea, should be abolished.

3 28/05/21, Attempt finished Complete

18:30
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?

The question can be divided into two parts-

1- Hart- dworkin debate on law as rules or Law as Principles

2- Rights affecting the relationship between law and justice

Hart- Dworking debate on law as rules or Law as Principle-

Hart-
Accroding to Hart, Legal system is consisted of Primary and Secondary rules.He was a positivist which emphasised on the rule of recognition to draw
the validity of any law.He classified the rule of recognistion as an ultimate rule.To judge the validity of a law within a system of rules depens of the
satisfying certain criteria provided by the rule of recognisation. Rule of recognisation presupposes the existence of such a rule.

In a simple legal system, the validity of the primamry rules depens on the Internal aspect but in the complex legal sytem, the official memebers are
required to act in the consisten with the secondary rules. There is a system of rules that includes rule of recognisation so that the status of a rule depends
on whethet they it satisfy certain criteria provided by the rule of recognition. This is an external statemnt of the fact.Therefore, rule of recognistion is an
ultimate rulemof recognistion that provides a system of rules with the crireria of validity.
Law os Community are special types of rule that can be implemented by the coercive public power.These rules are differentiated from moral rules as these
rules can be identified by the pedigriestic characteristic.Hart rule of recognisition is distinct from morality of the community. Rule of recognition as a
simple rule might be that a particular rule is the law and complex rule will be the Constitution.
Dworkin-

Dworkin disagee with Hart in many aspects.He emphaisesd on principle, rule and policy.Standard that go beyond the rules on which prinicples and policy
are bsed.
He differentiated between Policy and prinicples as -

Policy is a way to achieve certain ends like improvemet in social political conditions but principle has moral fabric and followed becuase it has justice or
fairness aspects in it.
The distiction between the policy and priniples is of moral reasoning that is of consequentialist and deolontogical.

He differentiated bwteen rules and principles after giving two illustrative case-
1-Riggs v. Plamers-

The issue involved in this case is that whether a murderer who murder with the intention to inherit the propoert, will inherit the property?
If we apply blanketly apply the Hart rules, then the murderer will inherit the proporty . But Hart has answer to this issue.We classify this type of cases as
Hard cases and stated that where the rules end the Judges has to apply strong discretion to dispose this case accordingly.harts views is that the Judges
should not apply some random standard
Dworkin didn go with the hard dicertion as suggested by the Hart.He applied the various priniple todecide a particlar issues. We was in favour of weak
discretion of judges as jusdges has to choose from the discreet body of choices. Judges has to decide on the set standard already fixed.Dworkin argued
that that Judges can apply principles which are different from rules. He stresed that the rules are applicable in all or nothing fashion but principle
apply by lending weight to it.

2- Hennigsen v. Bloomsfiled-
Manufacture in the contact limited his liablity. After the accident, the purcharser sued the manufacturer.The isue is whther the purchaser will be provided
conpensation?

Here in this case, the Court has granted compensation to the vicy=tim by providing greater liablity to the manufactuer. He argued that the manufactured
cannot hide behind the contract guarante provision as he is in dominattant posittion.
Here the dworkin argued that they applied the various priniples as standard like to respect the promises which are binding in compare to the manufacturer
are liable to provide guarantee to his buyer.After comparing various stnadards or principles, the Court has given decision in facour of victim.

This principle can be applicable in two ways-

a)Inclusive legal positivism and b)exclusive legal positivism
 Dworkin argued that applying rule of Inclusive legal positivism in the rule of recognition will not be work because when judges have the strong discretion
in the Hartisian sense, the party may not be aware about the obligation to perfrom the case. (retrospective application of Law)

2- Rights affecting the relationship betwwen laws and Justice-

In chapter VI, of the Dworkin "Taking rights Seriously", analysed the JoHn Rawls concept of theory of Justice. In the analysis process, he comes down to
two points-

(a)Rawlsian Principles are conservative -

Conservative in the sense that John Rawls first suggest for the equal protection of liberty for all and at the moment he says equal liberty of all gives it
pripority over equality principles. He suggested that It would be more elagilatarin if we invert the principle of Justice provided by the JoHn Rawls.
According to him, equlaity should not give away to liberty.Equality should ensures the liberty of each Individuals.

(b)Importance of Reflective equilibrium-

The reflective equlibrium is all about the key moral reasons to our unreflective morals beliefs. It is to testing our moral conviction and develop a moral
theory.

(c) Original Position as Pyshhological Model -

Dworkin argues that psychological model allows human beings to start generating moral intutions. Dworkin suggested that Original position draws on the
mental gramar of morality.We can term Original Position as a hypothetical contract with a moral force of bindingness.According o Dworkin, if this was in
the mind of John Rawls than it can be defended.

(c) The Idea of contract - the deontelogical Theory -

Hypothetical contract is necessary for the Rawlsin theory. A theory that idea of rights so seriosuly that so as to amke them fundamental in political theory.
According to him, Original position is invoking hte faculty of morality while Reflective Equilibrium is commited for constrcting theconstructive theory of
morality then it leads into a contract.
Rawls Theory- Rights BAsed-

Different type of political theory-

Goal BAsed- According to this, first sets the goal and then to take action advancing the goal.

Right BAsed- Place Individual at centre and then take decision or conduct as fundamental importance.In this theory, the rights of the Individual is more
important than the goals But it doesnot means that erery right will trump the social goals.
Duty Based Theory-

Duties of the Individual shall be carried ireespective of the goal achieved.

Now, whther Rawls proceeded with goals based theory or right based theory?

Rawsl started his discussion criticising the utilitarian goal based theory by stressing that under this theory, it doesnot pay attention to the distributive
effects of the goal on tha particular Individuals and it puts the Individual liberty at risk and moral value of Individual at compromise. John Ralws
constructed this social contract model because he wants to give each Individual primacy with respect to veto in the social contract.Consnet is the
important aspect in the Ralwsian theory of justice because he binds on the depper conception of right based theory.. Therefore, the Theory of Justice of
Rwals is a right based theory conception.
Rawls didnot dsiplace the Rawls theory of Justice but orgainsed his theory by deeper moral basis .Dworkin Included Constructivist model of morality,
second right based morality, and last the right to equal respect and concernunder the structural design that produces two principle of Justice.

Response history

Step Time Action State Marks

1 28/05/21, Started Not yet

14:30 answered

2 28/05/21, Saved: The question can be divided into two parts- 1- Hart- dworkin debate on law as rules or Law as Answer
18:29 Principles 2- Rights affecting the relationship between law and justice HART- DWORKING DEBATE saved
ON LAW AS RULES OR LAW AS PRINCIPLE- Hart- Accroding to Hart, Legal system is consisted of
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RULES.He was a positivist which emphasised on the rule of
recognition to draw the validity of any law.He classified the rule of recognistion as an ultimate rule.To
Step Time Action State Marks

judge the validity of a law within a system of rules depens of the satisfying certain criteria provided by
the rule of recognisation. RULE OF RECOGNISATION PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH
A RULE. In a simple legal system, the validity of the primamry rules depens on the Internal aspect but in
the complex legal sytem, the official memebers are required to act in the consisten with the secondary
rules. There is a system of rules that includes rule of recognisation so that the status of a rule depends on
whethet they it satisfy certain criteria provided by the rule of recognition. This is an external statemnt of
the fact.Therefore, rule of recognistion is an ultimate rulemof recognistion that provides a system of rules
with the crireria of validity. Law os Community are special types of rule that can be implemented by the
coercive public power.These rules are differentiated from moral rules as these rules can be identified by
the pedigriestic characteristic.Hart rule of recognisition is distinct from morality of the community. Rule
of recognition as a simple rule might be that a particular rule is the law and complex rule will be the
Constitution. DWORKIN- Dworkin disagee with Hart in many aspects.He emphaisesd on principle, rule
and policy.Standard that go beyond the rules on which prinicples and policy are bsed. He differentiated
between Policy and prinicples as - Policy is a way to achieve certain ends like improvemet in social
political conditions but principle has moral fabric and followed becuase it has justice or fairness aspects
in it. The distiction between the policy and priniples is of moral reasoning that is of consequentialist and
deolontogical. He differentiated bwteen rules and principles after giving two illustrative case- 1-RIGGS
V. PLAMERS- The issue involved in this case is that whether a murderer who murder with the intention
to inherit the propoert, will inherit the property? If we apply blanketly apply the Hart rules, then the
murderer will inherit the proporty . But Hart has answer to this issue.We classify this type of cases as
Hard cases and stated that where the rules end the Judges has to apply STRONG DISCRETION to
dispose this case accordingly.harts views is that the Judges should not apply some random standard
Dworkin didn go with the hard dicertion as suggested by the Hart.He applied the various priniple todecide
a particlar issues. We was in favour of weak discretion of judges as jusdges has to choose from the
discreet body of choices. Judges has to decide on the set standard already fixed.Dworkin argued that that
Judges can apply principles which are different from rules. HE STRESED THAT THE RULES ARE
APPLICABLE IN ALL OR NOTHING FASHION BUT PRINCIPLE APPLY BY LENDING WEIGHT
TO IT. 2- HENNIGSEN V. BLOOMSFILED- Manufacture in the contact limited his liablity. After the
accident, the purcharser sued the manufacturer.The isue is whther the purchaser will be provided
conpensation? Here in this case, the Court has granted compensation to the vicy=tim by providing greater
liablity to the manufactuer. He argued that the manufactured cannot hide behind the contract guarante
provision as he is in dominattant posittion. Here the dworkin argued that they applied the various
priniples as standard like to respect the promises which are binding in compare to the manufacturer are
liable to provide guarantee to his buyer.After comparing various stnadards or principles, the Court has
given decision in facour of victim. This principle can be applicable in two ways- A)INCLUSIVE LEGAL
POSITIVISM AND B)EXCLUSIVE LEGAL POSITIVISM Dworkin argued that applying rule of
Inclusive legal positivism in the rule of recognition will not be work because when judges have the strong
discretion in the Hartisian sense, the party may not be aware about the obligation to perfrom the case.
(retrospective application of Law) 2- RIGHTS AFFECTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWWEN LAWS
AND JUSTICE- In chapter VI, of the Dworkin "Taking rights Seriously", analysed the JoHn Rawls
concept of theory of Justice. In the analysis process, he comes down to two points- (A)RAWLSIAN
PRINCIPLES ARE CONSERVATIVE - Conservative in the sense that John Rawls first suggest for the
equal protection of liberty for all and at the moment he says equal liberty of all gives it pripority over
equality principles. He suggested that It would be more elagilatarin if we invert the principle of Justice
provided by the JoHn Rawls. According to him, equlaity should not give away to liberty.Equality should
ensures the liberty of each Individuals. (B)IMPORTANCE OF REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM- The
reflective equlibrium is all about the key moral reasons to our unreflective morals beliefs. It is to testing
our moral conviction and develop a moral theory. (C) ORIGINAL POSITION AS PYSHHOLOGICAL
MODEL - Dworkin argues that psychological model allows human beings to start generating moral
intutions. Dworkin suggested that Original position draws on the mental gramar of morality.We can term
Original Position as a hypothetical contract with a moral force of bindingness.According o Dworkin, if
this was in the mind of John Rawls than it can be defended. (C) THE IDEA OF CONTRACT - THE
DEONTELOGICAL THEORY - Hypothetical contract is necessary for the Rawlsin theory. A theory that
idea of rights so seriosuly that so as to amke them fundamental in political theory. According to him,
Original position is invoking hte faculty of morality while Reflective Equilibrium is commited for
constrcting theconstructive theory of morality then it leads into a contract. RAWLS THEORY- RIGHTS
BASED- Different type of political theory- Goal BAsed- According to this, first sets the goal and then
Step Time Action State Marks

to take action advancing the goal. Right BAsed- Place Individual at centre and then take decision or
conduct as fundamental importance.In this theory, the rights of the Individual is more important than the
goals But it doesnot means that erery right will trump the social goals. Duty Based Theory- Duties of the
Individual shall be carried ireespective of the goal achieved. Now, whther Rawls proceeded with goals
based theory or right based theory? Rawsl started his discussion criticising the utilitarian goal based
theory by stressing that under this theory, it doesnot pay attention to the distributive effects of the goal on
tha particular Individuals and it puts the Individual liberty at risk and moral value of Individual at
compromise. John Ralws constructed this social contract model because he wants to give each Individual
primacy with respect to veto in the social contract.Consnet is the important aspect in the Ralwsian theory
of justice because he binds on the depper conception of right based theory.. Therefore, the Theory of
Justice of Rwals is a right based theory conception. Rawls didnot dsiplace the Rawls theory of Justice but
orgainsed his theory by deeper moral basis .Dworkin Included Constructivist model of morality, second
right based morality, and last the right to equal respect and concernunder the structural design that
produces two principle of Justice.

3 28/05/21, Attempt finished Complete

18:30
Question 4

Not answered

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?

Response history

Step Time Action State Marks

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

Step Time Action State Marks

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

Question 5

Not answered

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?

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 6

Complete

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?

1. The answer to the question that does the principle of National responsibility produce Global Justice lies in the Millers theory of national responsibility
and Global Justice.Where two approaches are suggested, first is the Individualist approach where people are seen as an agent. But to solve the problem of
Collective analogue that arises he suggest the Idea of National Responsibility.
The Idea of NAtional Responsibility entails that each members of the scoiety are collectively responsible.However, these national responsibilities are
aborad and they need certain limitations to be applied on them. The Second approach is the Individual obigation approach where people are seen as
victims.

Miller theory focuses on both the Individual as well as Institutional Ethics.Thus, in order to obtain a global Justice the personal Ethis of an Individual that
how an Individual see himself bound to to for people whose lives are in bad consition such as in Iraq where the drowning children can play a crucial role
to understand this obligation.
The government and other Institutions are giver the secondary positions that is the Institutions should be used effectively to discharge the duties af an
Indifidual.Miller regards gobal Justice as an Institutional question. Thus according to him, for global Justice it is important that reform shuld be brought in
karge number of Insttution. so that a a fair outcome for each and every Individual can be delivered.

He argues that these institutions should include the existing Interntaional and National Institutions as well as the rules and practices through which the
Glbal economy operates.Miller had taken the Institutional approach similar to that of Rawlisn apprach of reforimg through the Institution but has taken
the Individualistic appraoach along wih it for better result.
He is in favour of taking the Individualist approach along there exist an obligation of Justice between the Individual and for the effective dsicharge of
these obligation the Institutions are established.The theory of Global Justice where the principle of Justice that applies to the Institution such as the
priniple of equlaity is focused upen but, while developing these principles of the nature and limits of the personal obligations in the absence of the
Instituions should be considered.Therefore, the fact that one person is a fellow citizen and one is not fellow citizen is of no relevance morally as duty of
the Justice has the universal scope. The theory of Global Justice should be one that is made to fit on the present system of the world and if followed by all
governemnts, International Institutions and the Individuals then it would bring the considerable change to the world.

2- Is Rawls proposal for a realistic utopia in the laws of the people is more likely to do so?
Rawls Laws of people is a political conception of rights and justuce that are applicable to the principles and norms of the Internationsl laws and pratices.
These laws are applied to the peolpe who follows the ideals and laws of the mutual rlation of people.(soicety of people).According to him, thses socity of
group of peoples can live a relaistic utopia that is an utopia that can be achieved through existing conditions.Relaistic Utopia would mean that a
philosophy taht extends to the ordinarily thoughts that are limits of practisable political possibility and while doing so reconciles the political and social
conditions. Acording to him, there may bediffrent reason for arriving at a same conclusion b y different people, he agrees that for a liberal conception of
Justice to be relaistic , It is important that itt relies on the actual loss of the nature and achieve a stability allowed by those laws and its first prinicples and
precepts must be applicable and workable to the present political and social arrangements.
Morever, for a poticial conception to be utopian it is necessary that to specify a reasonable and just society the moral ideals,principles and concepts is
used.According to him, there are threee basic characteristics principles that are present in the family of reaosnable conception of JUtices.

1- The baisc RIghts and Liberties similar to in a constitutional regime ,

2- Assigning of these rights,liberties and opportunities,special priority and third is assuring evry citizen primary good for effective implementation of their
freedom.

3- All the essential elemts of the political conception of Justice must be present in the political.
It also requires that there should be reasnable idea of toleration. Moreevry the unity of the society doesnot require a religious unity.

Thereofore, rwals theroy of unrealistic Utopia, states should be imputed Interested and state is scertained only for reasoanble people. He is in favour of
loose cooperative organisation like UNO where it can work for people, he also recognises the NAtional boundary.

Response history
Step Time Action State Marks

1 28/05/21, Started Not yet

14:30 answered

2 28/05/21, Saved: 1. The answer to the question that does the principle of National responsibility produce Global Answer
18:29 Justice lies in the Millers theory of national responsibility and Global Justice.Where two approaches are saved
suggested, first is the Individualist approach where people are seen as an agent. But to solve the problem
of Collective analogue that arises he suggest the Idea of National Responsibility. The Idea of NAtional
Responsibility entails that each members of the scoiety are collectively responsible.However, these
national responsibilities are aborad and they need certain limitations to be applied on them. The Second
approach is the Individual obigation approach where people are seen as victims. Miller theory focuses on
both the Individual as well as Institutional Ethics.Thus, in order to obtain a global Justice the personal
Ethis of an Individual that how an Individual see himself bound to to for people whose lives are in bad
consition such as in Iraq where the drowning children can play a crucial role to understand this
obligation. The government and other Institutions are giver the secondary positions that is the Institutions
should be used effectively to discharge the duties af an Indifidual.Miller regards gobal Justice as an
Institutional question. Thus according to him, for global Justice it is important that reform shuld be
brought in karge number of Insttution. so that a a fair outcome for each and every Individual can be
delivered. He argues that these institutions should include the existing Interntaional and National
Institutions as well as the rules and practices through which the Glbal economy operates.Miller had taken
the Institutional approach similar to that of Rawlisn apprach of reforimg through the Institution but has
taken the Individualistic appraoach along wih it for better result. He is in favour of taking the
Individualist approach along there exist an obligation of Justice between the Individual and for the
effective dsicharge of these obligation the Institutions are established.The theory of Global Justice where
the principle of Justice that applies to the Institution such as the priniple of equlaity is focused upen but,
while developing these principles of the nature and limits of the personal obligations in the absence of the
Instituions should be considered.Therefore, the fact that one person is a fellow citizen and one is not
fellow citizen is of no relevance morally as duty of the Justice has the universal scope. The theory of
Global Justice should be one that is made to fit on the present system of the world and if followed by all
governemnts, International Institutions and the Individuals then it would bring the considerable change to
the world. 2- IS RAWLS PROPOSAL FOR A REALISTIC UTOPIA IN THE LAWS OF THE PEOPLE
IS MORE LIKELY TO DO SO? Rawls Laws of people is a political conception of rights and justuce that
are applicable to the principles and norms of the Internationsl laws and pratices. These laws are applied to
the peolpe who follows the ideals and laws of the mutual rlation of people.(soicety of people).According
to him, thses socity of group of peoples can live a relaistic utopia that is an utopia that can be achieved
through existing conditions.Relaistic Utopia would mean that a philosophy taht extends to the ordinarily
thoughts that are limits of practisable political possibility and while doing so reconciles the political and
social conditions. Acording to him, there may bediffrent reason for arriving at a same conclusion b y
different people, he agrees that for a liberal conception of Justice to be relaistic , It is important that itt
relies on the actual loss of the nature and achieve a stability allowed by those laws and its first prinicples
and precepts must be applicable and workable to the present political and social arrangements. Morever,
for a poticial conception to be utopian it is necessary that to specify a reasonable and just society the
moral ideals,principles and concepts is used.According to him, there are threee basic characteristics
principles that are present in the family of reaosnable conception of JUtices. 1- The baisc RIghts and
Liberties similar to in a constitutional regime , 2- Assigning of these rights,liberties and
opportunities,special priority and third is assuring evry citizen primary good for effective implementation
of their freedom. 3- All the essential elemts of the political conception of Justice must be present in the
political. It also requires that there should be reasnable idea of toleration. Moreevry the unity of the
society doesnot require a religious unity. Thereofore, rwals theroy of unrealistic Utopia, states should be
imputed Interested and state is scertained only for reasoanble people. He is in favour of loose cooperative
organisation like UNO where it can work for people, he also recognises the NAtional boundary.

3 28/05/21, Attempt finished Complete

18:30