← Introduction to Political Science outline

Week 4 · Chapter

Chapter 4 — Political Theory & Philosophy

Introduction to Political Science Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~40–50 minutes · Objective 3 (compare the major political ideologies and normative theories evenhandedly — liberalism, conservatism, socialism and its family, and the smaller families; justice, liberty, equality, and rights; the harm principle; Rawls and Nozick — stating each position in its strongest form and distinguishing empirical from normative claims), Objective 1 (describe the subfields and methods of political science — political theory and philosophy, comparative politics, international relations, American government, and political methodology — and analyze a political text or dataset with the discipline's core tools: concept application, argument analysis, evidence evaluation, the comparative method, and the empirical/normative distinction) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slides, the tutorial, the quiz, and the workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This week is about the words people fight over when a rule asks some of them to give something up. Justice (giving each person what they are due) means different things to different people, and so do liberty (being free) and equality (counting the same). You will split liberty into two kinds, ask equality three questions, and read John Stuart Mill's famous rule from 1859 about when a government may limit an adult, word for word. Then you will meet two big theories of a fair society, one from John Rawls and one from Robert Nozick, and you will learn to take any value argument apart into its claim, its premises, and its hidden assumptions. You will not be told which side is right; you will be shown how to argue well.

Why you already care about this

Picture a city council meeting about electric scooters. A council member proposes a rule: every adult rider must wear a helmet, or pay a fine. Speaker 1 says riders who crash cost everyone money in emergency care. Speaker 2 says an adult who wants to take a risk with their own head should be left alone. Speaker 3 asks why the city never fixed the potholes that cause the crashes.

You have heard versions of this fight before. A campus senate debates quiet hours in the residence halls. A state splits the cost of higher education between students and taxpayers. A workplace decides whether bonuses go to the top sellers or get shared by the whole team. In each fight, both sides use the same few words, such as fair, free, and equal, and each side means something different by them.

Political theory is the subfield that slows those words down. It asks what they should mean and what follows if you accept one meaning over another. This chapter gives you the vocabulary and one tool for taking any value argument apart.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

define justice and say what the disagreement about it is a disagreement about;
sort a situation as a problem of negative liberty or positive liberty;
tell equality of opportunity from equality of outcome, and name the premise both share;
apply Mill's harm principle, in its exact words, to a new case;
state Rawls's view and Nozick's view at full strength without swapping them;
take a normative argument apart into its claim, its premises by kind, and its assumptions.

Carry this line with you: a limit on power — not a license to protect you from yourself.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 1 gave you the empirical/normative distinction and argument analysis; Week 2 asked why anyone should obey a government at all; Week 3 laid out the ideologies, each by what it values, fears, and argues.
This week: the vocabulary of normative theory (justice, liberty, equality, rights, the common good), Mill's harm principle, Rawls and Nozick on justice, and a method for analyzing a normative argument.
How they connect: the ideologies of Week 3 disagree about exactly these words, and this week you take each word apart with the claim-premise-assumption tools from Week 1.
Where we're going next: Week 5, Forms of Government & Regime Types, moves from ideas to the forms government takes, starting with what makes a democracy a democracy.

Week 1 taught you that a normative claim says what ought to be and is argued from values and premises. This whole week lives on the normative side of that line. Week 2 showed you three thinkers, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, answering one question about obedience. Week 3 showed you that a classical liberal and a social democrat share a belief in individual rights and split over how much the state should do. Keep that split in mind, because Rawls and Nozick are two careful versions of it.

1. Name justice: what is each person due?

Think about three roommates splitting a monthly utility bill. One works from home and runs a space heater all day. One is away most weeks. One pays the most rent because they have the biggest room. Should the bill be split three equal ways, by use, or by room size? Each answer sounds fair to someone.

That small fight is a fight about justice. The roommates agree that each of them should pay their fair share. What they disagree about is what each one's fair share is.

Justice is giving each person their due; the disagreement between theories of justice is about what each person is due and why.

Notice what that definition does and does not settle. It tells you the shape of the question. It does not hand you an answer. A theory of justice is a worked-out argument about what people are due, whether by need, by effort, by agreement, or by equal shares.

Worked example — what is the disagreement about? Read each roommate's position and name the standard of "due" it uses.

"Split it three ways; we all live here." The standard is equal shares: each roommate is due the same burden.
"Whoever runs the heater should pay more." The standard is use: each is due a burden matching what they consumed.
"The biggest room pays the most, the same as rent." The standard is an earlier agreement: each is due what the lease set up.

In words: all three accept that justice means giving each their due, and they split on the standard for measuring "due".

Misconception check. Students often think justice means everyone gets exactly the same. That is tempting, because "fair" and "equal" often travel together in everyday speech. But equal shares is only one standard of what people are due. Giving more to the person who used more, or worked more, can also be a claim about justice. The real argument is over which standard fits the case.

Memory hook: everyone agrees on "their due"; the fight is over what is due.

2. Split liberty: negative versus positive

Imagine a student who wants to take a free evening class at the public library. In one version of the story, a new rule bans anyone under twenty-five from the library after 6 p.m. In another version, there is no rule at all, but the last bus home leaves at 7 p.m. and the class ends at 8 p.m. Is that student free to take the class?

In the first version, someone is blocking her. In the second, no one is blocking her, but she still cannot go. The philosopher Isaiah Berlin (1958), in his essay "Two Concepts of Liberty", gave names to that difference. His essay is in copyright, so this course teaches it in words.

Negative liberty is freedom from interference: the absence of obstacles, barriers, or constraints that other people place in your way.
Positive liberty is the real capacity to act on your own choices, so that you can take control of your life and pursue your own purposes.

The library rule is a negative-liberty problem: a barrier someone placed. The missing bus is a positive-liberty problem: nothing is stopping her, yet she lacks the means to act.

Worked example — which sense of liberty is at stake? Sort each situation (all illustrative).

A neighborhood association votes to forbid front-yard vegetable gardens. Someone is placing a barrier on what residents may do. This is a question of negative liberty.
A worker is free to apply for a promotion that requires a license, but cannot afford the licensing course. No one forbids the application; the worker lacks the means. This is a question of positive liberty.
A town requires a permit to hold a protest in the main square. The permit is a constraint placed in the way. This is a question of negative liberty.

In words: ask "is someone stopping me?" for negative liberty, and "can I actually do it?" for positive liberty.

Here is a caveat worth keeping. Berlin's two senses are tools for seeing a disagreement, not a ranking. People who stress negative liberty worry that a government promising positive liberty may start deciding what your "real" purposes are. People who stress positive liberty answer that a freedom you cannot use is freedom on paper only. Both are live positions, and this course prescribes neither.

Misconception check. Students often treat negative and positive liberty as one word for freedom. That is tempting, because in daily life we say "free" for both. But the two can pull apart: removing a rule increases negative liberty without giving anyone a bus. When two people argue about "freedom" and talk past each other, check whether one means freedom from interference and the other means the capacity to act.

Memory hook: negative asks "who is stopping me?"; positive asks "can I act?"

3. Ask equality three questions, then name rights and the common good

Picture two summer jobs at a city pool. At the first, every applicant takes the same swim test, and the fastest swimmers get hired. At the second, the city sets aside spots for teenagers from neighborhoods without pools, because they never had the chance to practice. Which job is "equal"? Each one is, in a different sense.

Equality is not one idea. It is three questions.

Equality of opportunity is the view that everyone should get a fair start, with the same chance to compete for positions and rewards, whatever the results turn out to be.
Equality of outcome is the view that results themselves, such as income or living conditions, should end up close together across people.
Moral equality is the premise that every person counts the same and deserves equal concern, which both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome assume.

The first pool job aims at a fair contest. The second asks whether a contest is fair when some people never had a chance to train. Notice that neither side denies moral equality. They agree that every applicant counts the same, and they disagree about what treating people as equals requires.

Worked example — opportunity or outcome? Sort each policy at an illustrative workplace.

Every employee may apply for the training program, and spots go to the top scores on one exam. The aim is a fair start and an open contest. This is equality of opportunity.
The year-end bonus pool is split evenly among all staff, whatever their sales. The aim is close-together results. This is equality of outcome.
Before any decision, the company states that every employee's interests count equally. This is moral equality, the shared premise beneath both of the other policies.

In words: opportunity is about the starting line, outcome is about the finish line, and moral equality is the belief that makes both lines matter.

Rights in two kinds

Rights come in two kinds, and the split mirrors Berlin's.

A negative right is a claim that other people, including the government, hold back from doing something to you, such as silencing your speech.
A positive right is a claim that someone, often the government, provide you with something, such as basic schooling or emergency medical care.

A negative right asks others to refrain. A positive right asks someone to act, and usually to spend.

The common good

Finally, almost every speaker at that city council meeting will say their side serves the common good: what benefits a community as a whole rather than any one member. Every political tradition appeals to it, and each fills it in differently. When you hear "the common good", ask whose account of it is in play.

Misconception check. Students often use equality of opportunity and equality of outcome interchangeably. That is tempting, because both use the word equality and both sound fair. But a perfectly fair race can still end with big gaps between runners, and equal results can come from very unequal starts. When someone says "equality", ask: of what, at the start or at the finish?

Memory hook: opportunity is the starting line; outcome is the finish line.

4. Apply Mill's harm principle: harm, not offense

Go back to the scooter meeting. The council needs a rule for when it may limit an adult who has not agreed to be limited. John Stuart Mill (1859), in On Liberty, Chapter I, offered one of the most famous answers ever written. This course quotes it only as the Project Gutenberg edition prints it, and that edition uses the British spelling "civilised".

Mill's first sentence: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others". His next pinned sentence: "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

Read those two sentences slowly. The first names the one acceptable reason for power over an unwilling adult: preventing harm to others. The second rules out a reason people often give: the person's own good.

The harm principle is Mill's rule, from On Liberty (1859), that power over an unwilling adult member of a community is rightful only to prevent harm to others, never for that person's own good.

Two more terms make the principle usable.

Paternalism is restricting an adult's choices for that adult's own good, which the harm principle rules out as a reason for using power.
Harm, in Mill's sense, is injury to the interests of people other than the person acting, which is a narrower idea than offense.
Offense is distress or disgust at someone else's conduct or speech, which the harm principle does not count as harm.

The principle is a limit on power. It does not tell a government what to do. It tells a government which reasons do not count.

Worked example — four cases. Run the principle on each case and record the result.

Helmet. An adult scooter rider skips a helmet and risks injury to themselves. The only reason offered for compulsion is the rider's own good. "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." Result: ruled out.
Drunk driving. A driver who drinks risks injury to other people on the road. That is harm to others, the one reason the principle accepts. Result: permitted.
Offensive book. A library patron finds a book deeply offensive and asks for it to be banned. Offense is not harm in Mill's sentence. Result: ruled out as a reason to ban the book.
Outbreak. During an outbreak, a person with a contagious illness refuses to stay home. Infection could harm others, so the principle is in play. But how much risk counts as harm, and who decides, is a question the two sentences do not answer. Result: a hard case.

Tally: 1 permitted, 2 ruled out, 1 hard case, so 1 + 2 + 1 = 4.

A hard case is a case a principle does not settle by itself, because applying it turns on a further empirical or normative judgment. The outbreak needs evidence about how the illness spreads (empirical) and a judgment about how much risk to others is too much (normative). Mill's principle frames the question; it does not finish the answer.

Here is an honesty note about the result column. "Ruled out" means the harm principle rejects the reason given. It does not mean a helmet law is impossible to defend. Someone could defend it with a different principle, and then you would be arguing about principles, not about Mill.

Misconception check. Students often read the harm principle as permission to stop people from hurting themselves, or they quietly widen "harm" to "harm or offense". Both readings are tempting, because both sound like common sense. But the pinned text says the opposite: one's "own good" is not a sufficient warrant, and the word is harm, with no mention of offense. Chatbots make this slip often, so check any summary against the two sentences.

Memory hook: a limit on power — not a license to protect you from yourself.

5. Compare Rawls and Nozick: two theories of justice

Imagine a town that has to write the rules for its new community land trust, which will own the land under a set of homes. Some residents say the rules should guarantee a decent home to the worst-off family first. Others say that if every lot was bought and sold fairly, the result is fair, however unequal it looks. Two famous theories of justice line up behind those two instincts. Both works are in copyright, so this course states them in words and never quotes them.

Rawls: choose from behind a veil

John Rawls (1971), in A Theory of Justice, asks you to imagine choosing the basic rules of your society before you know your own place in it.

The original position is Rawls's imagined starting point, in which people choose the basic principles of their society together before knowing their own place in it.
The veil of ignorance is the feature of Rawls's original position that hides from each chooser their own class, talents, and other personal facts, so the principles chosen cannot favor themselves.

Rawls argues that people behind the veil would choose two principles. First, each person gets an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with the same liberties for all. Second, social and economic inequalities are allowed only under two conditions: they must be attached to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity, and they must meet the difference principle.

The difference principle is Rawls's principle that social and economic inequalities are allowed only when they are arranged to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.

Here is the strongest case for Rawls, put the way his defenders would. If you did not know whether you would be born into wealth or into hardship, you would want rules that make the worst position as good as it can be. A society that lets the accident of birth decide your life chances is not one you would agree to from behind the veil.

Nozick: look at how holdings arose

Robert Nozick (1974), in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, starts from the same respect for individual rights and reaches a very different place.

The entitlement theory is Nozick's account that a distribution of holdings is fair if every holding arose through justice in acquisition or justice in transfer, with rectification of past injustice.
The minimal state is a state limited to protecting people's lives, liberty, property, and contracts, which Nozick argues is the most extensive state that can be justified.

Here is the strongest case for Nozick, put the way his defenders would. What you hold is yours by right if you came by it fairly, through your own fair acquisition or a free transfer from someone else. A fair history makes a fair result, whatever the final pattern looks like. Taking from some to reach a chosen pattern treats people's rightful holdings as a common pool, and that, his defenders argue, fails to respect them as separate persons.

Worked example — where they split. Put both theories to one question about the land trust: is it fair if three families end up owning most of the lots?

Rawls's test: look at the pattern. Are the inequalities attached to positions open to all, and do they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged family? If not, the arrangement fails Rawls's second principle.
Nozick's test: look at the history. Was each lot acquired fairly and transferred freely, with past injustice rectified? If so, the result is fair, however uneven.
The shared starting point: both begin from individual rights. Rawls protects equal basic liberties first; Nozick protects rightful holdings.

In words: both start from individual rights, and they split on whether justice is judged by the pattern of outcomes or by the history of how holdings arose.

Misconception check. Students often swap the two thinkers and write "Rawls's minimal state" or "Nozick's veil of ignorance". The swap is tempting, because both wrote famous books on justice in the same decade. But the veil of ignorance and the difference principle are Rawls's; the entitlement theory and the minimal state are Nozick's. Chatbots make this swap too, so check every attribution.

Memory hook: Rawls draws the veil; Nozick keeps the state minimal.

6. Take a normative argument apart: the running analysis

Picture a classmate in a model constitutional convention, an illustrative exercise, standing up with a proposal. "Our new country is a federation of provinces," she says, "so we should have two chambers in the legislature." Half the room nods and half frowns. How would you judge her argument without agreeing or disagreeing on the spot?

Week 1 gave you the tools: a claim, the premises offered for it, and the unstated premises it needs. Now you use them on a normative argument, and you add one step. You label every premise by its kind, empirical or normative. One limitation is worth saying out loud first: finding an assumption is not finding a flaw. Every argument rests on assumptions. Naming one shows what a reader would have to accept.

This course will reuse one illustrative argument across several weeks. The running analysis is this course's illustrative, authorless argument for a bicameral legislature in a new federation, used as a model of a thesis whose premises are labelled by kind. Here is its first appearance.

Worked example — the running analysis, premise by premise. Read each premise, then check its label.

Thesis: a new democracy designed as a federation should give itself a bicameral legislature.
Premise 1, empirical (pinned): the U.S. Constitution gives every state two senators regardless of population. Article I, Section 3 reads "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State". You can check this against the text.
Premise 2, empirical (pinned): of 188 national parliaments, 81 are bicameral and 107 unicameral, as the Inter-Parliamentary Union counts them. Check the parts: 81 + 107 = 188. Half of 188 is 188 ÷ 2 = 94, and 81 is less than 94. So a second chamber is a common choice held by a large minority, not by most.
Premise 3, empirical (contested; needs evidence): a second chamber slows legislation and catches errors. This is a claim about practice; the comparative literature examines it and does not settle it.
Premise 4, normative (labelled): giving smaller units a voice they would lose in a population-only chamber is worth slower lawmaking.
Premise tally: 3 empirical + 1 normative = 4 premises.
The assumption: the argument assumes that the federation's units deserve protection as units, a value judgment it never states. Naming it is not refuting it.

Next comes the step that separates analysis from cheerleading. You state the strongest counterargument charitably, before any reply.

The counterargument, stated charitably: most of the world's parliaments are unicameral, a second chamber can duplicate or block the first, and an unelected or malapportioned chamber can dilute accountability. A federation could protect its units through a constitutional court or an amendment rule instead.
The reply: the thesis is about federations, not all democracies; the IPU count mixes the two; and the accountability worry argues for an elected, well-apportioned second chamber, not for none.

Notice what the labels did. Premise 2 is a pinned count, but it does not prove the thesis; it shows only that a second chamber is a common choice. Premise 3 needs evidence this argument does not supply. Premise 4 carries the value, and that is where a reader who rejects the thesis will usually push. The verdict on the thesis stays with you.

Misconception check. Students often think that finding a hidden assumption means they have found a flaw. That is tempting, because "you're assuming" sounds like an accusation. But every argument, including your own, rests on assumptions. An assumption becomes a weakness only if you can show it is false or that a reasonable reader would reject it. Name it first; judge it second.

Memory hook: label every premise; name the assumption; state the other side first.

7. Weigh the balance: liberty versus equality

Back at the city council, after the vote on helmets for scooter riders, a new item arrives: a proposal to fund free evening bus service by raising a fee on downtown parking. One resident calls it a gain for freedom, since more people could reach jobs and classes. Another calls it a loss of freedom, since drivers are made to pay for something they do not use. Both residents are talking about liberty. Both are also talking about equality.

This is the week's open question, and it is a normative one. How should liberty and equality be balanced?

Proponents of putting liberty first argue that people are separate persons with their own lives and plans. They hold that rules aiming at an equal pattern of results must keep stepping in to adjust what people freely do, and that negative liberty is the freedom most easily lost. Nozick's entitlement theory is one worked-out version of this view.

Proponents of putting equality first respond that liberty is worth little to someone who lacks the means to use it. They hold that a society which lets birth and luck decide life chances does not treat its members as moral equals, and that positive liberty is part of freedom, not a rival to it. Rawls's difference principle is one worked-out version of this view, though Rawls himself places equal basic liberties first.

That last point is a caveat worth keeping. The debate is not "liberty people versus equality people". Rawls defends liberty and equality together, and Nozick's view gives every person the same rights over what they fairly hold. The real question is which kind of liberty and which kind of equality should win when they collide.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two:

(a) Take the bus-fee proposal and state the strongest case for the side you find less convincing, as fairly as its best defender would state it.
(b) Name one rule in your own life (at school, at work, or in your town) that trades some liberty for some equality, and say which sense of each word is at stake.

Misconception check. Students often assume that a theory which cares about equality must not care about liberty. That is tempting, because the debate is often staged as two teams. But Rawls's first principle is an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with the same for all. The disagreement is about priorities and meanings, not about one value against no value.

Memory hook: which liberty, which equality, and which wins when they collide?

Key terms

justice — Giving each person their due; the disagreement between theories of justice is about what each person is due and why. (first used: 1. Name justice: what is each person due?)
negative liberty — Freedom from interference: the absence of obstacles, barriers, or constraints that other people place in your way. (first used: 2. Split liberty: negative versus positive)
positive liberty — The real capacity to act on your own choices, so that you can take control of your life and pursue your own purposes. (first used: 2. Split liberty: negative versus positive)
equality of opportunity — The view that everyone should get a fair start, with the same chance to compete for positions and rewards, whatever the results turn out to be. (first used: 3. Ask equality three questions, then name rights and the common good)
equality of outcome — The view that results themselves, such as income or living conditions, should end up close together across people. (first used: 3. Ask equality three questions, then name rights and the common good)
moral equality — The premise that every person counts the same and deserves equal concern, which both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome assume. (first used: 3. Ask equality three questions, then name rights and the common good)
negative right — A claim that other people, including the government, hold back from doing something to you, such as silencing your speech. (first used: 3. Ask equality three questions, then name rights and the common good)
positive right — A claim that someone, often the government, provide you with something, such as basic schooling or emergency medical care. (first used: 3. Ask equality three questions, then name rights and the common good)
common good — What benefits a community as a whole rather than any one member; every political tradition appeals to it, and each fills it in differently. (first used: 3. Ask equality three questions, then name rights and the common good)
harm principle — Mill's rule, from On Liberty (1859), that power over an unwilling adult member of a community is rightful only to prevent harm to others, never for that person's own good. (first used: 4. Apply Mill's harm principle: harm, not offense)
paternalism — Restricting an adult's choices for that adult's own good, which the harm principle rules out as a reason for using power. (first used: 4. Apply Mill's harm principle: harm, not offense)
harm — In Mill's sense, injury to the interests of people other than the person acting, which is a narrower idea than offense. (first used: 4. Apply Mill's harm principle: harm, not offense)
offense — Distress or disgust at someone else's conduct or speech, which the harm principle does not count as harm. (first used: 4. Apply Mill's harm principle: harm, not offense)
hard case — A case a principle does not settle by itself, because applying it turns on a further empirical or normative judgment. (first used: 4. Apply Mill's harm principle: harm, not offense)
original position — Rawls's imagined starting point, from A Theory of Justice (1971), in which people choose the basic principles of their society together before knowing their own place in it. (first used: 5. Compare Rawls and Nozick: two theories of justice)
veil of ignorance — The feature of Rawls's original position that hides from each chooser their own class, talents, and other personal facts, so the principles chosen cannot favor themselves. (first used: 5. Compare Rawls and Nozick: two theories of justice)
difference principle — Rawls's principle that social and economic inequalities are allowed only when they are arranged to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. (first used: 5. Compare Rawls and Nozick: two theories of justice)
entitlement theory — Nozick's account, from Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), that a distribution of holdings is fair if every holding arose through justice in acquisition or justice in transfer, with rectification of past injustice. (first used: 5. Compare Rawls and Nozick: two theories of justice)
minimal state — A state limited to protecting people's lives, liberty, property, and contracts, which Nozick argues is the most extensive state that can be justified. (first used: 5. Compare Rawls and Nozick: two theories of justice)
running analysis — This course's illustrative, authorless argument for a bicameral legislature in a new federation, used as a model of a thesis whose premises are labelled by kind. (first used: 6. Take a normative argument apart: the running analysis)

Summary

Justice is giving each person their due; theories split on what is due.
Negative liberty is freedom from interference; positive liberty is the real capacity to act.
Equality asks three questions: opportunity at the start, outcome at the finish, and moral equality beneath both.
Negative rights ask others to hold back; positive rights ask someone to provide.
Every tradition invokes the common good and fills it in differently.
Mill's harm principle limits power to preventing harm to others, rules out paternalism, and says nothing about offense.
Rawls draws the veil and judges the pattern; Nozick keeps the state minimal and judges the history.
Take a normative argument apart by claim, premises labelled by kind, and assumptions; an assumption is not a flaw.
How to balance liberty and equality is contested; state each side fairly and decide for yourself.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

Sort each situation as mainly a negative-liberty problem or a positive-liberty problem. Situation (a): a town bans street musicians from its central plaza. Situation (b): a parent is free to enroll in a night class but has no one to watch the kids. Situation (c): a campus requires a fee to post flyers on its bulletin boards.
Apply the harm principle to two invented city proposals. Say whether each reason offered is permitted or ruled out. Proposal (a): ban adults from climbing a public cliff without ropes, because they might fall. Proposal (b): ban fireworks within a block of a crowded stadium, because sparks could injure spectators.
Two invented speakers argue about a scholarship fund. Speaker A says, "If every dollar was donated freely and every award followed the donors' rules, the result is fair, however uneven." Speaker B says, "Ask what rules you would pick if you did not know whether you would be a rich applicant or a poor one." Which speaker is reasoning like Rawls, and which like Nozick?
A member of a neighborhood association (illustrative) argues: "Our park should stay open until midnight. Many members work late shifts and cannot visit in daylight. Everyone deserves time outdoors." Name the claim, label each premise by kind, and name one assumption.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

Situation (a) is negative liberty: a rule places a barrier on what musicians may do. Situation (b) is positive liberty: no one forbids the class; the parent lacks the means, childcare, to act on the choice. Situation (c) is negative liberty: a fee is a constraint placed in the way of posting. Asking "who is stopping me?" versus "can I act?" sorts all three.
Proposal (a) is ruled out. The only reason offered is the climber's own good, and "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." Proposal (b) is permitted. Sparks that injure spectators are harm to others, the one reason the principle accepts. Notice that neither case involves offense at all.
Speaker B reasons like Rawls: choosing rules without knowing your own position is the veil of ignorance. Speaker A reasons like Nozick: a fair history of free donations and rule-following transfers makes a fair result, whatever the pattern. If you swapped them, check the memory hook: Rawls draws the veil; Nozick keeps the state minimal.
The claim is that the park should stay open until midnight. "Many members work late shifts and cannot visit in daylight" is an empirical premise; you could survey members to check it. "Everyone deserves time outdoors" is a normative premise. One assumption is that late-night opening would not create costs, such as noise or safety worries, that outweigh the benefit. Naming that assumption does not sink the argument; it shows where a critic would push.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz. Next week, the model of electoral versus liberal democracy turns these ideas toward forms of government.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com