M 3 (Walters)

 

 

 

 

5 Comments for “M 3 (Walters)”

crholmes2

says:

You covered Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, and Rawl’s Theory very well. I also liked how you provided your own views and feedback on all three theories in order to show us your point of view on the subject and how it relates to the material.

cdkeith

says:

I agree with your points of view in regards to how each different theory would view wealth accumulation. As you explain, Utilitarians would generally frown on it, Libertarians would support it as long as it is achieved legitimately, and followers of Rawl’s Theory would have to examine whether this accumulation is also resulting in the improvement of the state of the lower class. Your analogy with the tooth drilling was interesting; I like how you presented Rawl’s Theory as a small sacrifice from the upper classes on behalf of the lower class. What I found interesting was to consider the morality of Robin Hood (steal from the rich and give to the poor) through the perspective of each of the three views. To my mind, Utilitarians support Robin Hood for equalizing the distribution of wealth, while Rawl’s Theory supports Robin Hood for enforcing the sacrifice to the lower class from the upper. Libertarians would not support Robin Hood as thievery is not a legitimate means of transferring wealth.

Malia Walters

says:

Cody! Hope your summer is going well.

So you’re saying that utilitarians would support Robin Hood because he’s maximizing happiness due to the fact that the majority of the people would be receiving money (stolen from the rich who are a small fraction of the population)? Would libertarians support a society with Robin Hood in it if the people receiving the money didn’t know it was stolen, after all Robin Hood is doing the stealing, but he’s not keeping the money.

bmorley2

says:

I think you did a good job of defining the three theories. I think Rawl’s Theory is rather tricky, it is really a case by case basis as to whether the accumulation of wealth is just. I think that you did a good job of presenting that, in both ways it is just and also unjust.

tpstickel

says:

Excellent video. It shows you really dug into the topic. And I know its not easy to video tape yourself…so I wanted to give you some extra points. The utilitarian view: It would be unjust if a small portion of the population possesses an enormous amount of wealth. A large number of people would live in poverty which would make them unhappy. On the contrary, if a greater number of people own wealth it would be fair because they will be happier.

According to Rawl’s theory, accumulation of wealth could be unjust if it only benefits the rich, and does not benefit the least-advantaged members of the society. Otherwise, accumulation of wealth is even beneficial for productivity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.