essay assignment

 Do the following using complete, grammatical sentences.

1. State your thesis statement. Define theoretical terms and expressions and any other terms in your statement that should clarified or disambiguated. The expression ‘sound deductive argument’ is a theoretical expression. A theoretical term or expression is one that has a distinct definition that is used in scientific, philosophical, legal or other truth-seeking discipline. For example, ‘point’ has a theoretical definition in geometry that has a meaning different from everyday uses of point, as in, e.g. ‘the point of the knife’, and ‘the two roads come to a point near Oviedo’.
Use the definition of ‘deductively sound argument’ from my lectures. It is the contemporary definition from the science of logic.
Because ‘deductively valid argument’ is part of the definition of ‘deductively sound argument’, you’ll have to define when you define ‘deductively sound argument’. Again, use the correct definition from that, the one used in class.
When it comes to theoretical definitions, you should likely directly quote you source. If my lecture/s is the source, you can site it as follows.

James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020.

The reason a direct quote is likely better for ‘valid’ and ‘sound’ definitions is that several students tried to put those definitions in their own words these semester, and although these efforts all showed partial understanding of the definitions, they all got something wrong about the meaning of the expression they where explicating.

2. State your main reason (the premises you think is strongest) for your thesis.

3. State what you believe is the strongest objection to your own thesis.

4. Post at least one helpful comment about another student’s positing.
The comment can be helpful because it supports OR raises a good challenge to a student’s thesis or premise/s. The latter will help your fellow student write a better paper, as they can respond to your relevant challenge. Any comment aimed at being helpful is acceptable, so long at it is thoughtful and polite. 

Durham,DAE, LTU, 12.5.2020
Notes for Your Essay Assignment

Use of Sources in You Essay

You may use dictionaries. If you
quote
or
paraphrase
or discuss a dictionary definition, you need to site it.

Relevant Senses of ‘fair’ from Dictionary Definitions

Equity, Impartiality

-Marked by impartiality and honesty: free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism (Merriam-Webster)

-Free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice (DICTIONARY.COM)

-Treating someone in a way that is right or reasonable, treating a group of people equally and not allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment (Cambridge Dictionary)

What is Deserved or Appropriate

-Just or appropriate in the circumstances (Oxford, Lexico)

-The right way to treat someone and what they deserve (Cambridge Dictionary)

-If something is fair, it is reasonable and it is what you expect or deserve (Cambridge Dictionary)

-Consonant with merit or importance: due (Merriam-Webster)

The following “Accordance with rules” definitions of ‘fair’ express a related, but different sense of ‘fair’ than the one used in Rawls’ Argument from Rationality to Fairness.

-In accordance with rules or standards; legitimate (Oxford, Lexico)

-Conforming with the established rules: allowed (Merriam-Webster)

-If a game or competition is fair, it is done according to the rules. (Cambridge Dictionary)

-Legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules (DICTIONARY.COM)

Essay Assignment Questions Forum

Please post your essay assignment questions responses (sent to you on 12.4) here.

 

Gavin

Smith

MondayDec 7 at 4:31pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Thesis:

Rawls’ argument from Rationality to Fairness is a sound deductive argument, as his principles of justice stemming from the original position and veil of ignorance are valid.

In order to understand the implications of my thesis, we must first define a “sound deductive argument” as “a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises,” (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020)

.

Furthermore, we must also define a “valid deductive argument” as “an argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given the premises are true,” (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020). Rawls’ “principles of justice” refer to his two explicitly defined principles from the text that stem from rationality and fairness. The “original position” is Rawls’ theoretical position in which one is subjected to the “veil of ignorance”, meaning that one does not know their own race, class, abilities, or intelligence and they have no interest in another’s well being (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020).

My main reason for my thesis is that logically, if one were to be put into the original position, they would only define justice in a fair way that benefits the whole. Since the person in this position would be unaware of any semantics about their own lives, they would rationally define justice as something that would be able to benefit them no matter what position they are in. This supports Rawls’ idea that rationally leads to fairness within justice. 

The strongest objection to my own thesis is that Rawls’ idea of the original position and a veil of ignorance are completely theoretical. Since these ideas are very abstract, they cannot be applied to an actual situation to test the theory. This means that one can argue that Rawls’ position is entirely too theoretical to actually apply to the real world.

 Reply Reply to Comment

·

Matt

hew Trescott

MondayDec 7 at 7:56pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi

Gavin,

Here’s a question that I struggled to answer in my own essay: is it really rational to avoid all possible risks in the original condition? What if, by choosing one particular conception of justice, you could create a society where you have a 99.99% chance of being wealthy and happy and a 0.01% chance of being extremely poor and miserable. If you were faced with the choice right now, why would it be irrational to take the risk? Rawls gives a reason but he doesn’t really elaborate on it convincingly in the small excerpt of his book that we read. I tried to expand on it in my essay, but I didn’t consider it the strongest argument in my essay so I didn’t post it here.

Matt
 Reply Reply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Allison Cirocco

Allison Cirocco

YesterdayDec 8 at 3:39pm

Manage Discussion Entry
Gavin,

I like the point you make about potential objection to your thesis. I agree that a strong point of objection would be that the “original position” and “veil of ignorance” are very abstract ideas making it difficult for real world application. This was a good piece of information that I did not think of!

Edited by Allison Cirocco on Dec 8 at 3:44pm

 Reply Reply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Xavier Espinoza

Xavier Espinoza

1:00amDec 9 at 1am

Manage Discussion Entry

Hello Gavin,

I like your analysis of the theories of justice, saying that a fair and rational person would choose to make fairness for all the leading virtue of justice in a society. I would, however, like to suggest another objection to this statement. What if the person in this instance didn’t want to be fair? In all honesty if I were put in the original position with the veil of ignorance, I would see that 2/3 chance of ending up in a higher wealth class and I might accept the smaller 1/3 risk in order to give myself higher levels of wealth and power if I were to end up in those classes. Many people aren’t fair, and like to play the odds.

 Reply Reply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Matthew Trescott

Matthew Trescott

MondayDec 7 at 7:45pm

Manage Discussion Entry

2.

Thesis statement: Rawls’s argument is deductively valid—the conclusion that these [principles] are fair first principles of justice clearly follows from the premises he uses to support it. It is also a sound argument—each premise is true within the limits Rawls places on the argument.

1. Note: since I defined “logically valid” and “logically sound” in my own words in my thesis statement, I’m not copying another wording of the definition here. But to make things more exact, by “clearly follows from the premises,” I mean “could not be false if the premises are true.”

2. Strongest supporting evidence for thesis: A fair original condition is absolutely a requirement of modern social contract theory (i.e. social contract theory that doesn’t suppose that the “state of nature” ever actually happened.)

2. Strongest potential objection: social contract theory is descriptive, not prescriptive—the conclusions drawn from it seem to do a good job describing society, but it’s all empirical (based only on observation). Therefore it cannot be used as evidence in drawing conclusions about abstract concepts like justice.

 Reply Reply to Comment
.

Collapse Subdiscussion

Gavin Smith

Gavin Smith

YesterdayDec 8 at 12:28pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Matt,

I see what you mean that Rawls’ argument is sound within the limits he placed on it. This is something I neglected to mention on my own, perhaps the only reason that his argument is sound is due to the restrictions he put on the theoretical situation. It is practically impossible to test out his ideas in a real-world situation, and your reply to my discussion mentioning the rationality of the risk is highly valid. Many people would be likely to take the risk, as many actually take risks like this daily within our current system in the US.

Gavin
 Reply Reply to Comment
.

Collapse Subdiscussion

Mohammed

Al-Najjar

Mohammed Al-Najjar

YesterdayDec 8 at 7:24pm

Manage Discussion Entry
Hi Matt,

I agree with your statement that it is a sound and valid deductive argument. There is viable evidence in proving that statement, in which the principles are fair first principles of justice. However, I do believe that you can use the social contract theory as evidence to prove your statement. I believe that it is derived more from just observation, but from real-life examples. 

Mohammed
 Reply Reply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Allison Cirocco

Allison Cirocco

YesterdayDec 8 at 3:32pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Thesis: Rawl’s argument is a sound deductive argument due to the following valid principles: the idea of justice as fairness from the “original position” and the idea of a “veil of ignorance” to ensure fairness.

A sound deductive argument is a “deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises” (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020). A valid deductive argument is defined as “an argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given premises that are true” (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020).

The main reason for this thesis is that with the idea of “original position” and “veil of ignorance,” people would obtain fundamental principles of justice that involve fairness as the priority. There would not be any knowledge per the “veil of ignorance” regarding status, class, ability, etc so people would not care about that of others.

The strongest objection to this thesis could be the alternative utilitarian idea that revolves around society maximizing the greatest good to the greatest number of people. Another objection could be comparison of other social contract theories ie. Locke or Rousseau.

Edited by Allison Cirocco on Dec 8 at 3:32pm

 Reply Reply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Mohammed Al-Najjar

Mohammed Al-Najjar

YesterdayDec 8 at 6:42pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Thesis Statement:

Rawl’s argument from Rationality to Fairness is a sound deductive argument since his points present a rational idea of the principles of justice in the original position, under the veil of ignorance.

I believe that it is a sound deductive argument, since a sound “deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises” (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020). A valid deductive argument is defined as “an argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given premises that are true” (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020). In this case, Rawl’s argument meets the requirements to be a valid argument.

The strongest evidence for this argument revolves around the original position, in which justice is distributed with the emphasis on fairness. This original position is without bias and focuses on handing justice for the betterment of all involved. If there is justice in any system, fairness must accompany it as proof of such justice.

An objection to my thesis statement would be previously established and theorized social contracts, such as the ones established by John Locke and Thomas Hobbs. Theories that emphasize the good of the commonwealth instead of the individual. Another potential aspect to disapprove of my statement is the fact that this could be too broad of a problem, and more thought must be put into each case where justice must be served. 

 Reply Reply to Comment
.

Collapse Subdiscussion

Joshua Standifer

Joshua Standifer

YesterdayDec 8 at 11:24pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hello Mohammed,

I agreed with your thesis that Rawls’ argument is sound. Both of Rawls’ two principles clearly emphasize the importance of fairness in justice and equality for all. I also found your analysis that fairness is needed to prove why justice is just. It’s an idea that I think a lot of us observe without realizing. Do you believe that Rawls’ broadness/vagueness within his argument is due to the fact that the argument only works in an abstract environment, if so how will this affect your essay?

Joshua Standifer
 Reply Reply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Joshua Standifer

Joshua Standifer

YesterdayDec 8 at 11:23pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Thesis Statement: The argument presented by Rawls in Rawls Argument from Rationally to Fairness is a sound deductive argument because his two principales about justice found in the “original position”, backed by the “veil of ignorance”, are just and valid.

A sound deductive argument is defined as a “deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises”, (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020). What makes a deductive argument valid is when “an argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given premises that are true” (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020). Based off of these two definitions one can understand why Rawls’ deductive argument is a sound one.

The strongest main reason for my thesis statement involves the fact that the original position removes all bias. This allows for the most amount of equality for all to be implemented in Rawls’ hypothetical society. Justice and fairness for the entire society go hand in hand, according to Rawls’ argument.

The strongest objection to my thesis can be found with some ethical theories, like ones that believe society should be dictated not by an unbiased individual but by everyone involved in said society working towards the good of the commonwealth. This also includes ethical theories that believe individuals are inherently evil and not good. 

 Reply Reply to Comment
.

Collapse Subdiscussion

Alvaro Merino

Alvaro Merino

7:18amDec 9 at 7:18am

Manage Discussion Entry

Hey Joshua, I agree with your thesis when you say that Rawls’ argument is a sound deductive one, and I like how you incorporated the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” to explain that Rawls’ argument is “just and valid”. It is very hard to test Rawls’ ideas of an ideal sociery based on his theory, but it is true that justice and fairness tend to go hand in hand, which makes Rawls’ argument valid. I did not think of the ethical approach when it comes to objections of my thesis, but I like the approach you took. Societies should not be run by a unique unbiased individual, but by a collective that would not allow said individual to make decisions towards his personal interests.

 Reply Reply to Comment
.

Collapse Subdiscussion

Kenneth Peterson

Kenneth Peterson

12:17pmDec 9 at 12:17pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Joshua, I feel like you are making a good point with the Rawl’s argument. I to put veil of ignorance, and I knew that it was another one when I was typing this and it’s the original position. When I was typing my discussion I was trying to go off memory and all I remembered was the veil of ignorance, so when I read yours it brought back to my memory the rest and I completely agree with your thoughts when comes on this. I also feel if you could take all bias away, one would have a better chance at being treated fairly. But, my thought is, are people truly able to remove bias from their thoughts?

 Reply Reply to Comment
2.

Collapse Subdiscussion

Savannah McDonald

Savannah McDonald

3:09pmDec 9 at 3:09pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Joshua, I agree with your argument. And your objection is very fit for your argument. The commonwealth and the belief that individuals are inherently more evil than the group is such an interesting take that I failed to consider. Like Kenneth said, bias plays a huge role in these arguments and eliminating bias is a difficult thing to achieve entirely. With that being said, it is easy to assume that commonwealth holds less bias than having a single individual dictate, however how can we prove that the commonwealth holds no bias towards outsiders? 

Edited by Savannah McDonald on Dec 9 at 3:13pm

 Reply Reply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Xavier Espinoza

Xavier Espinoza

12:26amDec 9 at 12:26am

Manage Discussion Entry
Thesis:

Rawls’ Argument from Rationality to Fairness is an unsound deductive argument. Based off of the premises he makes from the Original Position and the Veil of ignorance, Rawls’ theories of Justice are not undeniably true.

I use the definition for an ‘unsound deductive argument’ as this, “An unsound argument is a deductive argument that is either invalid, or has one or more false premises, or both.” (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020.) The term premise also being defined as ” a statement in an argument that sets forth evidence. (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020.)

My main argument against Rawls’ theories of justice under the original position and the veil of ignorance, is that if these people in this situation are only concerned about their own well-being and don’t know their own distinctions compared to others, why would they immediately decide to take the less risky path? There are plenty of rational-minded people in the world that choose to gamble in order to take them to a state of being that was better than the one they were in before. Not everybody would take the most fair path for all, some do want to cheat and gamble to make themselves wealthier. For example: if we’re to continue using the ideas of a lower, middle, and upper class; there’s a 2/3 chance that you won’t end up in the lowest category of wealth. Therefore, you would want to stack the odds in favor for the wealthier classes so that if you do end up in them, you would have even more wealth than before. You would choose Laissez-Fair Capitalism in this example.

The biggest argument against this is that even using this type of thinking, that people would want the most profits based on the odds, they would also be concerned about the risk against them. As appetizing as that 2/3 chance looks, there still is 1/3 of a chance that they won’t end up in the top 2 wealthiest classes. Therefore even though the premise that every person would choose fairly is false, I think that the conclusion that Liberal Capitalism would be chosen is still a viable choice. It gives the top two classes fair amounts of wealth while still insuring that if you ended up in the lowest class you wouldn’t suffer immensely.

 
 
 Reply Reply to Comment
.

Collapse Subdiscussion

Warren Maurer

Warren Maurer

3:08pmDec 9 at 3:08pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hello Xavier, 

I agree with your thesis statement that Rawl’s principles of justice can not be proven true. I would recommend bringing up if the argument is vail (reader can be brought to the same conclusion) as it would help explain your argument.   

 Reply Reply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Alvaro Merino

Alvaro Merino

7:06amDec 9 at 7:06am

Manage Discussion Entry

1. Thesis: Rawls’ argument of his principles of justice and fairness is both a valid deductive argument and a sound argument. In order to fully understand what I mean by my thesis statement, lets take a look at what I mean by “valid deductive argument” and “sound argument”. A “valid deductive argument” is an “argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given the premises are true,” (James Durham, LTU 2020). Given that Rawls’ principles of justice derive from the two clearly stated premises of rationality and fairness, his argument is a valid deductive one. Moreover, a “sound argument” is a “deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises,” (James Durham, LTU 2020).

2. Strongest premise for thesis: Rationality within individuals in a society stems to a fair and justice society. Social contractual theory can only be fully enhanced once there is rationality and fairness within.

3. Strongest objection to thesis: What is justice? What is fairness? Even though we think that we have an answer to these questions, they are still theoretical concepts. Due to the abstract nature of such concepts, Rawls’ principles cannot be tested in a real-life scenario, and therefore his principles are stemmed from an observation.

 
 Reply Reply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Kenneth Peterson

Kenneth Peterson

12:10pmDec 9 at 12:10pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Thesis: Rawl’s argument is a sound deductive argument because of his  valid principle like the idea of a “veil of ignorance” to ensure fairness.

There are definitions for sound and valid deductive arguments, sound deductive argument is stated as “deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises” and valid deductive argument is “an argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given premises that are true” (James Durham, Course Lecture, Lawrence Technological University, 2020).

The reason why I chose this is because people are suppose to be treated fairly according to the veil of ignorance. It stands on ensuring fairness and I know that there are some others out there that I will find that can back this thought up as well. But, it’s all about getting fair justice and not being treated unfairly, and making fairness a priority and not secondary. Being able to judge without knowing the background of a person is about as fair as you can get and that’s what the veil of ignorance is talking about. 

One objection could be where Locke and Hobbs was speaking more so on the commonwealth and not so much on the individual person. Which would give you an entirely different look on it. Another one is when it talks about the greatest good for the greatest amount of people and maximizing that throughout the society. 

 Reply Reply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Warren Maurer

Warren Maurer

2:59pmDec 9 at 2:59pm

Manage Discussion Entry

1. Thesis 

Rawls’ principles of justice are fair and his arguments for them are valid, however I found them to be unsound. 

A deductively sound argument is one where the reader can be lead to the same conclusion. Whereas, a deductively sound argument must be necessarily true.  I see where he believes that people can be lead to his conclusion, but, I don’t believe he brings enough evidence to prove that his conclusion would be the one selected.

 

2. Main reasons

I believe Rawl’s work dose not provide enough evidence as to why people under a veil of ignorance would be driven to select it. I do believe Rawl brings up great point and provides good evidence as to why his principles of justice are best but it is not an easy thing to prove. Even under a veil of ignorance I believe that it would not be easy to convince people that this is probable solution.      

3. Counter arguments.

The strongest opposition to my thesis would be the other options presented. When people are faced with the options it may seam like Rawl’s principles of justice may be the way to go. One might be able to make the claim that people will pick the most fare options when they do not know their place in society. 

 Reply Reply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Savannah McDonald

Savannah McDonald

3:01pmDec 9 at 3:01pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Thesis: Rawls’ Argument from Rationality to Fairness is a sound deductive argument – meaning it is validated by having all true premises.

Main Reason: His argument contains all true premises, and he contains his premises to be bound specifically so that they remain completely true.

Strongest objection: The best objection against my thesis would be the argument about philosophical techniques to achieve a common wealth for the larger portion of society and less about the individual. Rawls was narrowminded when i came to forming his argument about the individual.