Sunday
August 2, 2015

Homework Help: Harvard Justice

Posted by Kate on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 at 9:26am.

According to the Professor Sandel, if judgments about the good are unavoidable in debates about justice and rights, is it possible to reason about the good (these judgments about the good)?

a) If reasoning about the good means that you must have a single principle or rule or maxim or criterion for the good life that you simply plug in every time who have a disagreement about morality, then the answer

is "Yes."

b) If reasoning about the good means that you must have a single principle or rule or maxim or criterion for the good life that you simply plug in every time who have a disagreement about morality, then the answer

is "No."

c) If reasoning about the good life (or, for that matter, justice) means moving back and forth between our considered judgments about particular cases and the general principles we would articulate to make sense

of these judgments, and then at least sometimes revising the judgments about the particular cases in light of the principles (or vice versa), then the answer is "Yes."

d) If reasoning about the good life (or, for that matter, justice) means moving back and forth between our considered judgments about particular cases and the general principles we would articulate to make sense

of these judgments, and then at least sometimes revising the judgments about the particular cases in light of the principles (or vice versa), then the answer is "No."

e) b) and c)

I feel that the differences between all possible answers are too close and I can't be the difference. Which is the most accurate opcion ?

Answer this Question

First Name:
School Subject:
Answer:

Related Questions

More Related Questions

Members