Brief Overview Responses: To complete this discussion forum, you will be posting a brief response to each of the four controlling questions below and then posting to critical peer comments. These should be in the form of a basic overview of your understanding of the issue(s) addressed in each question, plus your answer to the question. On this first pass, your response may be somewhat tentative or speculative. Do your best, in about 200-250 words (for each question) to come up with an answer you could more fully explain and defend in an essay of greater depth and length. You need not cite any external sources in these first sets of four responses, but if you do quote, paraphrase, or take any content from another source, please limit those sources for this first set of responses strictly to the course textbook or other course content.
Weigh in on the various definitions of equality (fundamental equality, social equality, equal treatment for equals, equal treatment for equals and unequal treatment for unequals)—which of these accounts best expresses your own understanding of equality? Why? Bring this definition of equality to bear on Ronald Dworkin's conception of the best way, politically speaking, to respect and uphold human rights.
The American philosopher, John Rawls (1921-2002), advanced an influential view of "justice as fairness." Assess his argument for his version of egalitarian liberalism—what is included in his account of justice and what sorts of rights do people have in society? Do you agree with this kind of liberalism, or do you think it falls short in bringing about the kind of just and fair society Rawls envisions? Finally, explain and evaluate the communitarian (be careful not to confuse 'communitarianism' with 'communism') critique of Rawls's atomistic, abstract individualism.
Compare and contrast the ethics of virtue and the ethics of conduct.
Critically discuss at least two different cultures or philosophical traditions that value having a good character over doing the right thing. Why do these cultures or traditions emphasize the importance of being a good person over doing good things? Which tradition is closer to your own ethical standard?
Must one choose between these two approaches, or can they be blended into a kind of hybrid "character + conduct" ethics? Can you find any examples of such a hybrid view? Explain and defend your point of view on this issue using whatever evidence you believe to be relevant.
Critically reflect on the virtue ethics we find in the works of Plato as he portrays the character of his beloved friend and teacher, Socrates, as compared to the account of virtue we find in Aristotle's teachings.
What are the fundamental components of being a virtuous person, or living "the good life," in the view of Socrates and Plato?
What is the basis of virtue on Aristotle's account?
What do these two accounts of virtue have in common and what are some important differences?
Is Aristotle's view an advance of that of his teacher, Plato? Why or why not?
Do you agree with Aristotle that there is a purpose or future goal that is essential to human existence? Be sure to include in your discussion a consideration of how this sort of teleological view of human nature influences Aristotle's ethics.