#4 - Global, Must, Author's Perspective, Subject Perspective

[Adam Tyson]

I think that's a fair assessment, mab9178. Although it might be reasonable to infer that Rawls would agree with that claim because it is, according to the author, an implication of Rawls' theory, it also might be the case that Rawls would say "gosh, I hadn't thought of it that way. No, I don't agree with that." So you're right that we cannot be entirely sure that Rawls would agree with it.

I do think it's easier to see that the author does not agree with it, which makes it easy to eliminate quickly, even if you think Rawls must agree since it is, perhaps, inherent in his theory. But there's nothing wrong with having a good backup reason, too!

[mab9178]

Thank You Adam

Mazen

[sarah_tucker@alumni.brown.edu]

Hi! I wanted to check my reasoning for A. I drew on the last sentence of the passage that the author would also agree prioritizing personal preferences because the author rejects the idea of distribution. Does this add to the argument that the author and Rawls agree on A or did I stretch the passage a bit and get lucky?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I think you got lucky there, Sarah, because in that last sentence the author is not expressing their belief, but rather the unfortunate consequence of Rawls' theory. That bit about providing a good at the expense of others IS the redistributionist idea that they apparently dislike.

[Angelicanb95]

Can someone please explain why E is wrong? In the example with the children cutting the cake, it seems to me what is being illustrated is that it is fair to sacrifice the individual’s interests (i.e. the person cutting cake) to maximize the satisfaction of the majority (i.e. all 5 children). Specifically, like 33 says “by denying the child information that wild bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved.”

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Angelicanb95!

The example of the children and cake is meant to illustrate the veil of ignorance. Rather than illustrating that it is fair to sacrifice one individual's interests to maximize the satisfaction of the majority, the example reflects that the child would likely opt to cut the cake into equally sized pieces if the child did not know who gets which piece. This arrangement would seem fair, and the process seemed fair because the child did not know who gets which share, which could bias the result (see lines 29-24).

In addition, answer choice (E) seems to be a statement of what a utilitarian would believe. But we're told in the passage that Rawls was reacting against utilitarianism (line 2). Thus, without even inquiring into the author's view of (E), we know that Rawls would not agree with it. Since the question asks for what they'd agree about, we can eliminate this answer choice.

[CristinaCP]

Hi Powerscore,

So for Rawls, we know that he objects to the utilitarian idea that we should prioritize the interests of the majority over those of just a few people. And we know that the author objects to that idea too. But I didn't choose A because objecting to an idea doesn't mean that you agree with the opposite, i.e. that we should thus prioritize the interests of a few people over the majority for some situations. So how can we use the idea that they're objecting to an idea as evidence that they would agree with the idea's opposite? I thought that was too large of a jump, so that's why I eliminated A when I first did this passage.

[EmilyOwens]

Hi Powerscore,

So for Rawls, we know that he objects to the utilitarian idea that we should prioritize the interests of the majority over those of just a few people. And we know that the author objects to that idea too. But I didn't choose A because objecting to an idea doesn't mean that you agree with the opposite, i.e. that we should thus prioritize the interests of a few people over the majority for some situations. So how can we use the idea that they're objecting to an idea as evidence that they would agree with the idea's opposite? I thought that was too large of a jump, so that's why I eliminated A when I first did this passage.

Hi Cristina,

There is actually evidence that supports answer choice (A) within the passage: starting at line 13. Rather than let a mob kill an innocent individual to appease a majority, the author and Rawl would rather the innocent individual’s preferences be met (i.e. let the innocent person live, the opposite of the majority’s preference). THIS is the situation where one’s personal preferences is more important than that of the majority’s, and, according to the wording in the answer choice (i.e. “a situation” versus “all situations”), we only need one instance in which they agree with what is stated.

I hope this clears things up!