Cercetare Romania

7. Kant versus Rawls

Sandel reia discutia despre  Kant si continua cu ideile lui John Rawls ( fundamentate pe considerenentul ca niste legi echitabile exista doar daca toata lumea este de acord ca ele).

What is justice? According to the philosopher John Rawls, principles of justice are the outcome of a special kind of agreement. They are the principles that we would all agree to if we were choosing rules for our society and no one had any unfair bargaining power.

But how can we ensure that no one has any unfair bargaining power? Rawls’s answer is that we have to limit our knowledge. So he imagines that we all find ourselves behind a “veil of ignorance.” Behind this veil, you do not know anything about yourself. You do not know your sex, your race, or the social class you belong to. You do not know how strong or weak you are, how stupid or intelligent, or whether you are disabled. You do not even know what your goals in life are, or whether you practice a religion.

In this situation of ignorance, it’s not possible for anyone to propose social rules designed to benefit himself or herself over other people. And so, Rawls thinks, whatever social rules we would agree to in this situation would be fair and just.

Is this the right way to think about principles of justice?

A fair contract

Rawls thinks that we can understand what justice is by considering the idea of a fair agreement. According to Rawls, an agreement is not necessarily fair even if it is voluntary. In order to be fair, an agreement must also be made against a background of equality. It is unfair if one of the contracting parties is able to take advantage of the other party because he is stronger, richer, better informed or simply more powerful.

Is Rawls right about what counts as a fair agreement?

1. If an agreement was entered into voluntarily, is that enough to ensure that the terms agreed to are fair?

2. Suppose you have a leaky toilet, and a plumber tells you that it will cost $2000 to repair. You agree to this price, not knowing that the usual price for the same type of repair is $200. Is the contract between you and the plumber voluntary? Is the contract fair?

3. Suppose a man comes to your door and asks you to buy a newspaper subscription at a discounted price. You do not particularly like the newspaper he’s selling, but you have heard from your neighbors that the man will make a habit of stealing your mail out of spite if you refuse to buy a subscription. Reluctantly, you agree to buy a subscription, at a discounted price. Is the contract voluntary? Is it fair?

4. Imagine that you are shipwrecked at sea, floating in the open ocean with no hope of rescue. A pirate ship comes upon you and the captain offers to fish you out of the water—but only if you agree to be the ship’s cabin boy forever. The captain does not exert any other pressure. He simply makes his offer and says, politely, “Take or leave it.”

If you agree to the captain’s offer, are you morally bound to remain the ship’s cabin boy forever? Would it be morally wrong for you to try to escape from your bondage when the ship reaches the next port? Why or why not?

1. Imagine that you are poor and cannot find work due to an economic recession. One day a new employer comes to town and offers you a job in his factory for a wage of 50 cents per hour. The employer exerts no pressure. He simply makes his offer and says, politely, “Take it or leave it.” You accept the offer, not without gratitude, because you have no reasonable alternative. Is the contract between you and your new employer voluntary? Is the contract fair?

Justice, impartiality, and ignorance

According to Rawls, justice is the outcome of a fair contract. However, for Rawls a contract is guaranteed to be fair only if the contracting parties are not able to take advantage of each other. Rawls therefore proposes that the principles of justice are the outcome of a special, hypothetical contract, concluded between behind a “veil of ignorance,” where no one knows any of his personal qualities, strengths, or weaknesses.

Is the right way to think about principles of justice?

1. Should we abstract from our personal qualities, strengths, and aspirations in choosing principles of justice to govern our society?

2. Do you agree that no one should be able to propose a rule that benefits white men, just because he’s a white man—or to propose a rule that benefits aristocrats, just because he’s an aristocrat?

3. Do you think that you should be able to make reference to your religious beliefs, or your life goals, when proposing rules for society? Is it even possible to make such an important decision without knowing who you are and what goals and beliefs you have?

4. You often have to think about what would be fair, and how to treat people justly. In thinking about justice in everyday life, do you try to make yourself color-blind, sex-blind, race-blind, intelligence-blind, and treat people with equal consideration? Or do you think that treating people fairly is compatible with showing greater concern for some people than for others? Does fairness require you to be blind to the differences between people?

5. Would your answer to the previous question be different if you were a public official? Is it fair for a teacher to privilege her favorite student? Is it fair for a police officer to treat people differently because of the color of their skin, or because of their religion? Is it fair to judge some people more leniently than other people just because you like them more, or because you know them better?

6. As a matter of justice, should laws always be blind to the differences between people?

Preluare de pe http://www.justiceharvard.org/?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&catid=21:episode-one&Itemid=7

8. Despre distributia resurselor in societate

In acest curs Sandel vorbeste din nou despre taxarea bogatilor pentru a-i ajuta pe cei saraci; de data aceasta priveste problema prin prisma teoriilor lui Rawls.

According to the philosopher John Rawls, principles of justice are the outcome of a special kind of hypothetical agreement. They are the principles we would agree to if we were choosing rules for our society behind a “veil of ignorance,” where no one knows his or her age, sex, race, intelligence, strength, social position, family wealth, religion, or even life goals. Such ignorance makes it impossible for anyone to propose social rules designed to benefit him more than other people. Therefore, Rawls argues, the principles we would agree to behind a veil of ignorance would be fair and just.

Rawls’s First Principle

Rawls thinks that two principles would be agreed to behind the veil of ignorance. His first principle says that everyone should have the same set of basic liberties, including the freedoms of speech and conscience, the right to hold office and to vote for elected officials, freedom from arbitrary arrest, the right to hold personal property, and so on. According to the first principle, a society in which some people are slaves or serfs, or in which very few people get a say in the government, would be unjust.

Do you agree that everyone should have the same basic liberties, whether they are a man or a woman, young or old, rich or poor, part of the minority or part of the majority?

Which liberties should everyone have?

Why would it be unfair for some people to have more liberty than other people? Rawls thinks that the unfairness is explained by the idea of a hypothetical agreement made behind a “veil of ignorance.” For example, people would not agree to a system of liberties for men only if they didn’t know whether they themselves would wind up being men or women.

Is Rawls right to think that the unfairness of a society that distributes liberties unequally is best explained by the idea of an agreement behind the veil of ignorance? If not, what explains the unfairness?

Rawls’s first principle says that everyone should have an equal chance to run for public office. Do you agree? By law, U.S. citizens who were born outside of the United States are not eligible to run for president. Do you think this law is unjust? Does Rawls’s theory provide the best way of thinking about the justice or injustice of this law?

Rawls’s first principle says that everyone should an equal chance to influence legislation and political affairs. However, today wealthy individuals and corporations exercise much more influence on the government and the laws than the average citizen might. Is this unjust? If so, do you think that Rawls’ theory best explains why it is unjust?

Fair equality of opportunity

Rawls’s second principle of justice has two parts. The first part says that society must ensure that there is fair equality of opportunity. Fair equality of opportunity is different from formal equality of opportunity, or the idea of careers open to talents.

There is even a lack of formal equal opportunities when the best jobs are legally restricted to members of a powerful group. This was the case in the United States before the Civil Rights Movement and racial desegregation. However, there can be inequality of opportunity even without such legal restrictions. Often, poor kids who are very talented have unequal opportunities because their parents lack the money to send them to good schools, to pay for private lessons, and so on. Compared to equally talented children of rich parents, poor kids have fewer opportunities to develop their talents.

According to Rawls’s idea of fair equality of opportunity, this is unjust. People with the same natural talents and the same willingness to use them should have the same chances of success, no matter how rich or poor their parents, no matter their sex, or race, or any other social distinction. Do you agree?

If you think that poor kids should have the same chances of success as equally talented rich kids, does that mean you agree with Rawls’s second principle? Suppose it turns out that satisfying this principle would require enormous taxes on the rich. After all, it would cost a lot of money to provide schools of the exact same quality to everyone. Do you think that justice requires such taxation?

Rawls’s idea of fair of equality of opportunity could also be seen to require steep inheritance taxes. After all, children who inherit lots of money have a huge advantage in the competition for jobs, money, and success. Do you think that children should be able to inherit great wealth from their parents?

Should the children of rich parents be allowed to get very expensive, private math lessons, or singing lessons, or basketball lessons? What if such lessons give them a huge, unearned advantage in the race for jobs, careers, and wealth? Is it just for poor children to have much lower prospects as a result?

The Difference Principle

The second part of Rawls’s second principle is called the difference principle, and it is even more egalitarian than Rawls’s idea of fair equality of opportunity.

The difference principle says that there should be no differences in income and wealth, except those differences that make even the least advantaged members of society better off. Not even superior effort makes a person deserving of special rewards. After all, argues Rawls, your ability to make a good effort is partly dependent on how good your childhood was, whether your parents loved you and provided encouragement, or whether you were neglected and abandoned. All of these are factors over which you had no control. Therefore, if you are now able to make a good effort, you can’t really claim credit for it. Do you agree?

Is it true that you can’t really claim credit for your upbringing? Surely, your habits and temperaments today are partly the result of your upbringing. Does this mean that you don’t really deserve what you get from making an effort?

Think of some of the advantages that you have in your life. Do you deserve them more than other people who lack them? If so, why? If not, should these advantages be provided to everyone?

Do you think it’s unjust if some people do not get to vote in elections merely because they are a woman or merely because of the color of their skin?

Do you think it’s unjust if some people earn much less money and are much worse off than others merely because they are a woman or a member of a racial or ethnic minority?

If you answered “yes” to the last two questions, do you think it’s also unjust if some people are much worse off than others merely because they were born with fewer talents or with a debilitating disease and the need for expensive medicines? Why should people be worse off merely because of the way they were born?

http://www.justiceharvard.org/?option=com_content&view=article&id=80&catid=21:episode-one&Itemid=7

9 Principiul aristotelian al virtutii

Sandel incepe prezentarea principiului aristotelian al virtutii – fiecaruia de i se cuvine

In 1974, Allan Bakke, a white male, applied to medical school at the University of California, Davis. He was rejected, even though his grades and test scores were higher than some of the minority candidates who were admitted that year.

Bakke sued the medical school. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that he should be let in. Schools could consider race as one factor among others in deciding which candidates to admit, but they could not use race as a quota, by reserving some seats for minority candidates only.

Do you think Bakke was treated unfairly? Did he have a right to be considered on the basis of his intellectual merits alone? Consider the following questions as you think about the morality of affirmative action.

1. Can Bakke be said to deserve to be admitted to medical school? Sure, he didn’t choose to be a member of the white majority—he was just born that way. But he also didn’t choose to be naturally gifted—he was also just born that way. These are factors equally outside of his control. Why should Bakke’s application to medical school be considered solely on the basis of personal and academic merit when this depends at least partly on factors over which he had no control?

2. What is merit in general? Often minority groups receive better care when they are treated by minority doctors, so doesn’t being a minority count as merit? Shouldn’t we train the doctors who will provide the best care?

3. What if minority lawyers do a better job helping their minority clients than do white lawyers? Is that a form of merit? Does it justify discriminating against law school applicants who are white?

4. Medical schools and law schools often argue that racial diversity is important to the quality of professional education. It makes people more open-minded, helps them learn from their peers, and makes them sensitive to people with different needs. Should medical schools and law schools therefore be allowed to admit a certain number of minority candidates each year, for the sake of achieving the educational benefits of diversity?

5. Barbara Grutter applied to law school at the University of Michigan. She was also rejected, even though her grades were higher than some of the minority candidates who were admitted. This time, the US Supreme Court decided that the University of Michigan had acted lawfully. Racial diversity at law school was an important goal. Do you agree? Was the decision just or unjust?

6. In the United States, African Americans have historically been disadvantaged because of slavery and racial segregation. Is affirmative action in college admissions an acceptable form of compensating for historical disadvantage?

7. Is affirmative action in hiring for jobs an acceptable form of compensating for historical disadvantage? Is affirmative action acceptable even if equally qualified white candidates are rejected as a result?

8. In general, is it legitimate to design social, political, and educational institutions to redress past wrongs? Does your answer depend on what kind of institution we are talking about?

9. In 2003, the New Haven fire department administered a test to rank candidates for promotion. When none of the African-American firefighters scored high enough to be considered for promotion, the fire department chose to invalidate the test results. The white and Hispanic firefighters then sued the fire department. The US Supreme Court decided that the fire department had engaged in wrongful racial discrimination by invalidating the test results. Do you think that the Court made the right decision?

1. Is affirmative action equally acceptable in elementary school, college, and graduate school?

2. Is affirmative action equally acceptable when picking candidates for government jobs, when picking candidates for private sector jobs, and when choosing who will receive government income support?

3. Which wrongs are sufficiently important to justify using affirmative action to redress them?

10 Despre virtuti (2)

In acest curs Sandel continua discutia despre principiul aristotelian ale justitiei  precum si interferentele acestuia cu drepturile si libertatile omului.

Aristotle, one of the most important philosophers ever to write about justice lived in ancient Greece, some 2400 years ago. He thought that justice means giving each person his due, or what he deserves. But how do we know what people deserve? What goods and opportunities should go to which persons?

Aristotle’s answer is that we have to consider the “telos”—the point, the end, or the purpose—of the good in question. Say we have some nice flutes. Who should get them? According to Aristotle, it’s not the rich person, since playing flutes has nothing to do with money. Nor is it the person who will be made most happy, since making good music is different than being happy. The purpose of a flute is to be played, and to be played well. So, Aristotle thinks, the flutes should go to the best flute players.

Aristotle’s method is to think about justice by thinking about the purpose of a good, an institution, or even a person. If the purpose of a tennis court is to play tennis, then the best tennis players should get priority. If the purpose of universities is to pursue and reward scholarly excellence, then the students with the best academic records should be admitted. If the purpose of a human being is to live a good life, then society should promote the good life by ensuring that citizens have the resources necessary for living a good life, and by encouraging them in the pursuits that make for a good life.

Is this the right way to think about justice?

What is the purpose of an institution?

If we want to use Aristotle’s “teleological” method to think about the justice of a particular institution, we need to determine the point or the purpose of the institution. But how are we to know the purpose?

Consider the practice of golf. Is the purpose of golf merely entertainment, or is it athletic excellence? The question is important because the answer will help to determine how golf should be played. If the purpose of golf is mere entertainment, then it shouldn’t matter if players ride golf carts from one hole to the next. The use of golf carts does not conflict with the purpose of entertainment. Indeed, allowing golf carts may even serve this purpose better than making everyone walk the long course, by hastening the pace of play. However, if the purpose of golf is not mere entertainment but athletic excellence, then perhaps players should be required to walk the long course, or else forfeit the game.

How do we know the purpose of golf or any other practice or institution? Should we say that the purpose of an institution is given by what most people believe it to be? The problem with this answer is that people tend to disagree about the purposes of institutions. Does the purpose of an institution lie in its beneficial consequences? Does the purpose lie in the values that the institution promotes, honors, and rewards? Consider each of these alternatives as you think about the following questions.

1. Suppose there are some very good, public tennis courts in your town. Who should get priority to use the courts? Should priority be given to the tennis players who are willing to pay the most? Should court-time be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis? Should priority be given to the worst tennis players, who most need the practice? Should it be given to the best tennis players, who will play the best tennis? Which of these arrangements would be fair or just? What is the purpose of tennis, and does it help you to answer this question?

2. Who should be admitted to colleges and universities? Should admission decisions be made strictly on the basis of academic merit? Or should colleges and universities admit students with a variety of academic and other backgrounds, and to strive for diversity? What would be fair? What is the purpose of higher education, and does it help you to answer this question?

3. For much of its history, the US military did not permit women to serve in its ranks. Was this unjust? What is the purpose of the military, and does it help you to answer this question?

4. “Hooters” is a restaurant that hires only female waitresses who are willing to wear revealing clothing. However, some men want to work there as waiters, too. Is it unfair that “Hooters” hires only women? Consider the purpose of the restaurant. Is it merely to serve food? Or is it to entertain men? Who should get to decide the purpose?

Reasoning from the purpose

Aristotle’s method of reasoning about justice asks us to reason from the purpose of an institution to a conclusion about how the institution should function. In other words, we start with the purpose and ask how the institution can best serve this purpose. However, can’t the purpose of an institution itself be questioned?

1. Think of the Ku Klux Klan—an association founded with the intention of harassing and even killing African American, Jewish, Hispanic and other minority citizens. This purpose seems clearly unjust. How should we proceed if we want to use Aristotle’s method of thinking about justice? Try to construct a teleological argument against an association such as the KKK. Is it possible to argue against the KKK by reflecting on the purpose of voluntary associations generally?

2. How do we know whether the purpose of a given institution is just or unjust? Try to find a teleological method of answering this question. Perhaps we should ask whether—and how well—the institution contributes to a good society, or to a good human life. But what is a good society, or a good human life?

3. Aristotle thought that human beings were by nature meant to use their reason to deliberate about important moral questions, and to share in the political life of the community. He also thought that government should promote this purpose, by helping people to become better informed, and more virtuous. Do you agree?

4. Think of a law designed to promote civic virtue. Does this law run the risk of unfairly imposing the majority’s values on everyone? Can you think of a law that promotes civic virtue but escapes this objection?

5. Aristotle thinks that the reasoned life of an engaged citizen is a necessary part of a good human life. Is he right? Suppose someone chooses to live alone in the woods, away from the hustle and bustle of communal life. Is there something less good, and less fully human, about a life spent in solitude and isolation? Would it be better to spend one’s life living in a community of equals?

6. Consider this challenge to Aristotle: “Even if it is better to live in a community of equals than to live an isolated life, people should be free to choose for themselves what kind of life to live.” Do you agree?

7. Is Aristotle’s method of reasoning about justice and individual rights in tension with the modern emphasis on individual freedom? Or can his approach make adequate room for the value of individual freedom?

11. Despre omul social

In acest curs Sandel pune in balanta teoriile aristoteliene cu cele kantiene – virtutile intalnesc datoria morala. Se discuta despre viata in comunitati, despre comunitarism, umanitarism si  punctele de inflexiune dintre ele.

According to many modern liberals, moral obligations arise in only two ways. First, there are universal duties that we owe to every human being, such as the duty to avoid harming people unnecessarily. Second, there are voluntary obligations that we acquire by consent, as when we agree to help someone or promise to be faithful to our partners and friends. According to many modern liberals, there are no other types of moral obligation.

Critics of liberalism disagree. They say there is a third type of moral obligation that is neither universal nor voluntary. We can be morally obligated to a particular community even though we haven’t assumed the obligation voluntarily. Obligations of membership and loyalty can arise from shared identities, communities, and traditions—because we’re someone’s son or daughter, someone’s friend, a member of a particular community, or a citizen of a particular country.

Obligations of membership

Are there moral obligations of membership and loyalty that are neither universal nor voluntary? Are we sometimes obligated to do more for people who are closer to us? Is it possible to be obligated to do something for someone even if you haven’t chosen to be obligated? Are there obligations of membership and loyalty that can compete with universal duties to humanity? As you think about these questions, consider the following examples.

1. If you caught your brother shoplifting, would you call the police? Should you call the police? Many people would hesitate to report their own brother. Is this evidence of a special moral obligation that competes a universal duty of justice, or is it mere prejudice?

2. If you caught your best friend cheating on an exam, should you turn him in for the sake of fairness? Or should you keep quiet out of loyalty? Are you under two competing obligations, or is your sense of loyalty a prejudice you should overcome?

3. Do parents have greater obligations to their own children than to other people’s children? Suppose your child is drowning next to the child of a stranger. Do you have a greater moral obligation to save your own child than to save the stranger’s child? Why?

4. Are all parental obligations voluntary? Are parents obligated to care for their children merely because they chose to have children?

5. Do children have a greater obligation to help their own parents when they are in need than to help other needy people?

6. Are filial obligations voluntary? Children do not choose their parents. If children have a greater obligation to help their own parents than to help other people, where does this obligation come from?

7. Say there is a shipwreck, and the captain has to make a choice. He can either escape with his own son, or he can let his son drown but save several hundred of the ship’s passengers. What should he do? If he chooses to save the passengers, his wife will never forgive him. Is she being unreasonable?

8. In the American Civil War, General Robert E. Lee led the Confederate Army, even though he thought that slavery as a practice should come to an end. Lee said he could not bring himself to raise arms against his slave-holding countrymen in the South. Was there something admirable about Lee’s reticence, or was it merely prejudice? Is it evidence of a special moral obligation that competes with a universal duty to humanity?

9. Do Americans who live in El Paso, Texas, have greater moral obligations to people who live in Alaska than to people who live right across the river in Mexico? Why? What is the source of this obligation?

10. Is patriotism a virtue? Or is it merely prejudice for one’s own? Most people do not get to choose what country they will live in, and no one chooses where they’re born. Why are we obligated to the people of our own country more than to the people of any other?

12. Despre casatoriile de acelasi sex si despre noua politica

Acest curs discuta despre obligatiile morale care tin de statutul de cetatean si modul in care acestea ar trebui analizate. Se aprofundeaza teme precum avortul, casatoriile de acelasi sex sau libertatea cuvantului

Modern liberalism maintains that law should try to be neutral on controversial moral and religious questions. According to this view, the law should not affirm or promote any particular conception of the best way to live, but let citizens choose for themselves how best to live their lives.

But is it possible to settle questions of justice and rights without addressing other controversial questions about morality and the common good?

The right to free speech

Consider the example of the right to free speech. The city of Skokie, Illinois has been home to many Holocaust survivors. In 1977, the American Nazi Party tried to stage a demonstration there. When the city refused permission, the Nazi party sued the city in court. Should the city of Skokie have been allowed to forbid public hate speech? Is it possible to answer this question without passing judgment on the value of the speech in question? As you think about these questions, consider some of the arguments that have been made in favor of free speech.

1. Some people think that there is no moral truth, and therefore that it makes no sense to suppress a view because it’s morally wrong. Do you agree with this position? Is it a sound defense of the right to free speech?

2. Other people believe that there is moral truth, but that we have access to it only by allowing free speech. All sides must be allowed to speak for the truth to come to light. Do you agree with this position? Does it lead you to think that the city of Skokie acted wrongly in refusing to allow Nazis to stage a demonstration?

3. Other people believe that some speech is useless, or even psychologically harmful, but that it would be much worse if we started banning certain kinds of speech. Soon, even true but unpopular beliefs would be suppressed. Do you agree with this position? Does it lead you to think that the city of Skokie acted wrongly in refusing to allow Nazis to stage a demonstration?

4. Some believe that citizens in a democracy should have a right to express themselves regardless of the content of their speech. The laws that protect free speech should not favor one set of values; they should be neutral across competing conceptions of the good. Do you agree with this position?

After considering these arguments, do you think that the city of Skokie should have been allowed to forbid the Nazis from marching? Does your judgment depend upon what you think of hate speech in particular?

Abortion

Consider another contemporary controversy. Some people believe that a human person comes into being at conception and that, therefore, abortion is murder. Others argue that certain kinds of abortion should be legal because a woman should have the right to make medical decisions concerning her own body. What is your view?

1. Should abortion be legal? Under what circumstances?

2. Is it possible to defend a position on abortion without settling whether abortion is murder?

3. Is it possible to defend a position on abortion without making judgment about the value of women’s control over their own bodies?

Same-sex marriage

Consider same-sex marriage. Some people believe that homosexuality is immoral and that, therefore, same-sex marriages should not be permitted. Other people argue that same-sex marriage should be permitted because everyone has the right to be treated like an equal. What is your view?

1. Should same-sex marriage be legal?

2. Is it possible to defend a position on same-sex marriage without making a judgment about the value of homosexual relationship?

3. Some people believe that the purpose of marriage is procreation, while others believe that the purpose of marriage is to honor and promote loving relationships between committed adults, regardless of their sex. What is your view? Is it possible to defend a position on same-sex marriage without making a judgment about the purpose and value of marriage?

Tags: Sandel,Justitia,Cursurile,Windows,Live,Writer,Cursul,Kant,Rawls,continua,John,justice,philosopher,outcome,agreement,knowledge,ignorance,Behind,goals,life,religion,situation,advantage,Suppose,toilet,cost,door,newspaper,subscription,neighbors,spite,Imagine,cabin,Take,bondage,port,recession,employer,factory,hour,gratitude,strengths,Should,aspirations,aristocrats,aristocrat,reference,decision,intelligence,Does,differences,teacher,student,officer,laws,Preluare,option,article,episode,Itemid,Despre,curs,data,strength,wealth,Principle,liberties,freedoms,speech,conscience,office,officials,freedom,government,woman,example,system,women,citizens,States,president,theory,injustice,legislation,affairs,individuals,corporations,citizen,Fair,talents,opportunities,jobs,Civil,Rights,Movement,desegregation,restrictions,Often,parents,money,lessons,People,distinction,taxation,inheritance,competition,math,Difference,income,effort,person,encouragement,factors,temperaments,Think,advantages,elections,member,disease,medicines,Principiul,Incepe,Allan,Bakke,California,Davis,candidates,Supreme,Court,Schools,factor,quota,basis,Consider,action,Sure,Shouldn,lawyers,clients,applicants,Medical,education,Barbara,Grutter,Michigan,Racial,goal,African,Americans,slavery,segregation,college,admissions,disadvantage,institutions,institution,Haven,department,promotion,American,Hispanic,discrimination,sector,Aristotle,philosophers,Greece,goods,purpose,flutes,music,flute,players,method,universities,excellence,students,resources,pursuits,purposes,consequences,colleges,admission,decisions,backgrounds,history,Hooters,restaurant,waitresses,waiters,food,conclusion,Klux,Klan,association,intention,Jewish,argument,beings,virtue,objection,woods,solitude,isolation,tension,emphasis,room,Aristoteliene,Kantiene,obligations,duties,Second,obligation,Critics,liberalism,membership,identities,traditions,daughter,friend,examples,brother,Many,exam,Children,shipwreck,passengers,wife,General,Robert,Confederate,Army,countrymen,South,reticence,Paso,Texas,Alaska,river,Mexico,patriotism,Most,Acest,morale,Modern,conception,Skokie,Illinois,Holocaust,survivors,Nazi,permission,judgment,arguments,Some,truth,Nazis,kinds,Soon,democracy,conceptions,Abortion,controversy,Under,Same,marriages,relationship,procreation,relationships,adults,discutia,sunt,echitabile,daca,toata,lumea,este,acord,whether,himself,plumber,upon,justiceharvard,catid,pentru,didn,virtutii,sake,firefighters,precum,tennis,teleological,golf,discuta,liberals,neither,casatoriile,acelasi