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

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[canoekoh]

Where do we find the author agreeing with A? I can tell the author has admiration for Rawls theory but that's a bit different from agreeing.

[David Boyle]

Where do we find the author agreeing with A? I can tell the author has admiration for Rawls theory but that's a bit different from agreeing.

Hello canoekoh,

It is at least implied that the author agrees with Rawls on answer A when the author says, "At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible...but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason “why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many."
Key words here include "odd", "Incredibly", and "accordingly complains". Put together, these imply that the author and Rawls agree.

Hope this helps,
David

[Kellyg]

Hi David,

I may be misreading your explanation, but the way i see it the Rawls quote says that it would be okay to sacrifice the liberty of a few for the greater good of the many, but answer choice A seems to state the opposite (that it is permissible to create the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the majority's).

I think I'm getting confused by Rawls' quote that starts on line 14 because it seems contradictory to answer choice A?

Please help

[James Finch]

Hi Kelly,

The Rawls quote that ends the first paragraph is actually "complaining" about the utilitarian view, implicitly opposing the idea expressed in the quote. The author's diction, specifically "incredibly" and "odd consequences" allow us to infer that they too share with Rawls a strong disagreement that majority preference always dictates what is morally right. The given example of the execution of an innocent is the clearest expression that both Rawls and the author believe that the preferences of the single innocent individual about to be executed should be fulfilled over the preference of the overwhelming majority (the mob) that wishes to execute the person, making it a clear example of a situation that answer choice (A) describes.

Hope this clears things up!

[Lsat180Please]

Can you please discuss why C is wrong? Thank you.

[Claire Horan]

Hi LSAT180Please,

We know that the author of the passage would not agree with the statement in answer choice C because he or she describes that situation in the last two sentences and states that it is "unfortunately" a redistributivist idea. If the author thinks it redistributivist ideas are "unfortunate," then he or she clearly doesn't agree with society taking from people who have a good to give it to an individual who does not. Circling tone words will really help with questions that ask you to identify statements that authors (or their subjects) will agree or disagree with.

I hope this explanation helps!

[abby1285]

Can someone explain why B is wrong? Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

Abby,

Rawls is actually exploiting people's self-interest to get them to divide resources in a way fair for everyone. Look at line 38 and the child-cutting-cake thought experiment in lines 29-32. The entire reason why people divide resources fairly in Rawls's situation is because they don't know which share they will get, so if they produce an uneven distribution, they run the risk of getting a lower share. The very self-interest of people to avoid disadvantaging themselves encourages them to make all shares fair so that, whatever they end up with, it will be a fair share.

Robert Carroll

[mab9178]

Hi,

Regarding answer-choice C, "If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others," I read the experts' comments and I do understand that the author's use of the word "unfortunately" goes against answer-choice C because this word expresses misgivings, the author's misgivings about "redistributionist" notions.

My question is: Is it correct reasoning to eliminate answer-choice C because we dot know, based on the passage alone, whether Rawls agree with it?

My reasoning is: The text makes no mention of how Rawls feels about "redistributionist" ideas, nor does it make explicit (or inferably implicit) whether he sees his theory of justice as redistributionist. Accordingly, why can't we eliminate C on these grounds, as opposed to eliminating it on the grounds that the author's makes her feelings explicit as to the unfavorable implication of redistributionism?

I ask because I want to make sure that my reasoning is not falling in some blindspot!

Please

Thank You