Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

- Harvard University portion- - Libertarian view says that there should be an equal distribution of income wealth? Is it right way? No. Should be distribution in such a way that it especially helps the bottom population? Recall why reservations are necessary. Recall the example 'Getting into Harvard is pretty difficult-should it be strictly on merit?'. Crux- "Your life's prospects should not be only determined by the accident of your birth"-John Rawls - View acc. to JR- under Universal Basic income, you cannot give an equal amount to a beggar and to Shah Rukh Khan. - Meritocracy- Recall example racers on a race-course. If we do things strictly based on merits, we'll further widen the inequality. So reservations/redistribution of wealth and power, etc are necessary. - 2 questions against John Rawls- 1. What about incentive to work? If businessman is taxed 70-80-90%, he'll lose motivation to work. - Ans- JR says that there should be a balance. The businessman should be taxed only that much using which the basic training and education of the disadvantaged can be done. 2. Libertarians says, what about effort? What about hard work that people put in and still their share is taxed away by the govt. Isn't it slavery? - Ans- Recall Conan example. Does he really 'deserve' ALL the money he earns? Or is it by chance his work is being appreciated. Similarly, recall works of Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc Is it not just that their ideas are in demand today. - What is really Justice? How should things be really re-distributed? Explained using Aristotle's Teleological Reasoning, then by Kant's reply to Aristotle. - What really is justice acc. to Aristotle- For Aristotle, justice means giving people what they deserve, giving people their due. Recall example of distribution of Flutes. Telos (Greek: Goal)of flutes is to be played nicely. So it should be distributed acc. to its telos. This is c/a Teleological Reasoning. Hence, Justice is a matter of giving people what they DESERVE. Here he differs from Kant and Rawls. How? Read below. - Aristotle differs from Kant and Rawls here. Think- what is the Telos in politics. Acc. to Aristotle, the Telos (goal) of politics is to ensure a good and virtuous life of the citizens. But Kant and Rawls would say that the goal of politics is not to shape us morally, rather it is to respect our freedom to choose our own values and morals. Aristotle says that if the politicians do not ensure the goodness of the citizens, politics become merely and alliance of people w/ some arbitrary goal. The ultimate aim of the politics should be welfare of the citizens and the welfare schemes run by the govt are a means to that end. So he says that those who have a character which promotes this basic aim of politics, should have political (on the other hand, in India criminals enter into politics and legislature) - Kant's reply to Aristotle- Kant thinks Aristotle made a mistake here. Its one thing to let people decide what they want freely, and its something else that runs the risk of coercion to base law or principles of justice on any particular conception of a good life. - Communitarian argument- when we are born in our society, we are born with our pasts. So we have to abide by the virtues shaped by our pasts. Eg- Although i haven't done anything wrong w/ the SCs and STs, still i have to respect the reservations made for them, even at my own cost, since the past was not fair to them. Eg- suppose your child and someone else child are drowning. A father will obviously save his own child as he brought his child in this world. Now suppose a father is drowning and another man is drowning. Which one will the child save? Afterall the child will save his own father. But why? The child did't choose his father to bring him into this world. Questions to think about- Do we owe our parents more than other people around us? Do we owe our society and community more than other communities around us? And finally, Do we owe more to our fellow citizens that to citizens of other countries? What's the difference b/w our patriotic duties as citizens and our universal duties as human beings? Simply, it shows that the love of humanity is a noble sentiment, but most of the time, we live our lives by smaller solidarities. It shows that we learn to love humanity, not in general, but through its particular expressions. If we would have been neutral in above questions, then recall what Montesquieu says, "A truly virtuous man would come to the aid of the most distant stranger as quickly to as to his own friend. If men were perfectly virtuous, they wouldn't have friends"