Who gained and who lost?

In Cone’s essay there are several significant supporting examples for both the libertarianism (Hosier/Nonionic) and Egalitarianism (Rails). Although it is more clearly presented that his argument draws some support for Rails theory of equality, an example he gives can be used to defend the libertarianism perspective. The example which I am referring to is his explanation where Cohen looks to present the idea that a camping trip would not be enjoyable If people were always claiming rights to Items which they have brought, and that If that were the case it would result In a unpleasant camping trip for all.

Although this is being presented as a argument against the libertarian view, the defense come with something that Cohen himself mentions, which is the agreement of mutual exchange. Although it can seem as if only one person is benefiting from this the libertarian could argue as follows. To justify this the libertarian would have to look at what the mutual exchange would be, I am rightful owner of the potato peeler, she would Like to use the potato peeler to peel potatoes for the group, thus justifying the use of the potato peeler with mutual exchange.

The trade would have been the potato peeler for the peeled potato. Salons as this agreement between both parties had been known and agreed upon the libertarian would not see any problem with this scenario. Furthermore although Indirectly supporting Rails Egalitarianism perspective, Cohen argument can be related to Rails Theory of Equality. Within Rails theory of justice his argument simply support the mutual ownership of property.

Even more so in support of Rails theory of equality is when Cohen states within his example of the camping trip that there would be no benefit within the camping trip for anyone to consider themselves greater or have more of a right than any other, saying that the best camping trip would be produced by not having any hierarchy. Life (presumably with your own family) in either a society based on libertarian reminisces or one based on Rawlins principles, which would you choose and why?

I would choose to live by the libertarian principles. Every person has the ability to decide their destiny, and has the ability to overcome the challenges presented to them. Failures make excuses, based on the Rawlins principles why would I want to give what I rightfully earned. Although the Rawlins could argue that you didn’t rightfully earn the traits which you were born with I am the one who put them to use. What good is knowledge if you are not applying it. What good is it for me to buy a DOD lawn mower but never use it.

Likewise although I may not have been deserving of whatever talents or superior abilities I was born with, I was the one who put them to use, I was the one who developed them to be able to produce what I needed and want for my life. 2. Using either Sandal’s “Collie Smart (cheerleader)” or Casey Martin (golf cart) example, outline the basic tenets of an Aristotelian approach to Justice (in your answer, be sure to show how it differs from modern theories of Justice). Of the four “Negative Evaluations” of Virtue Ethics (see handout), which do you think is the most errors?

Why? Which theory – virtue ethics, utilitarianism, Kantian morality in your view, is the most convincing (you must select one)? Why? [20 marks] Note: the most convincing answers are those that explain the main tenets the theory (e. G. Kantian morality: principle of ends in themselves, good will, worthy of happiness, etc). The Aristotelian approach would simply be to find the Tells, but beyond that it would also have to find the mean to produce the best possible course of actions bringing it as close to the end(purpose) of the situation.

In this case, with collie smart he tells of cheerleaders is what had to be determined, which in itself depends on its basis, are they cheering for the crowd or are they cheering for a competition.