Hello, this question is here because we've worked on this and other similar assignments. If you don't know the answer, you can ask us for help. We guarantee an original paper free from Plagiarism.
Order a Similar Paper Order Different PaperWe got you covered for the whole semester.
Description
In his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that autonomy, or the ability to self-govern oneself, is the basis for morality and justice. Two contemporary philosophers, John Rawls and Robert Nozick, develop Kantian notions of autonomy to argue for different views of socio-economic justice (i.e. the distribution of wealth and goods for justice). In your paper, explain how Rawls and Nozick develop two different notions of socio-economic justice from Kantian autonomy and why they are at odds with one another. Examine the pros and cons of each side and determine which position (Rawlsian or Nozickian) is most just. Finally, at the end of your paper, explain whether John Stuart Mill and/or Peter Singer (utilitarian philosophy) would support the socio-economic system that you argued was best and why.3 attachmentsSlide 1 of 3
- attachment_1attachment_1
- attachment_2attachment_2
- attachment_3attachment_3
If you don't know the answer to this question, you can ask us for help. We guarantee an original paper free from Plagiarism.
Order a Similar Paper Order Different PaperYou can trust us with any of your assignments. We got you covered for the whole semester. We dedicate one writer to do all your assignments