Law, Morality, Cinema Final.docx - Mercedes Bryant \u201cLaw Morality and the Cinema\u201d Final Exam 1(A How would John Rawls respond to claim by the white

Law, Morality, Cinema Final.docx - Mercedes Bryant...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.

Mercedes Bryant 05/15/20 “Law, Morality and the Cinema” Final Exam 1(A). How would John Rawls respond to claim by the white majority that they were entitled to different treatment because they “earned” this right based on their own merit? John Rawls would respond to this idea of entitlement by stating that individuals should not be advantaged by their natural talents or in this case social position, nor suffer from their lack of talent of social condition. Rawl would say that individuals do not have control over these features of life. For Rawl, a just or fair social arrangement of the basic institutions for a modern democracy is one where all members would agree to. In this sense, the white men using their entitlement to benefit them, would not be just according to Rawl. In the perfect society according to Rawl, the choices or agreements made would come from the theory of the “veil of ignorance.” In this situation, all members in the social game would be placed in a situation which is called the “original position.” Having only general knowledge about the facts of life and society, each member is to make a “rational choice” concerning the kind of social institution they would enter into contract with. By denying the players any specific information about themselves or the other members, it forces them to adopt a generalized point of view of just and fairness. If the society in which the white majority men was established using the “veil of ignorance”, then they would not use their entitlement as an advantage. 1(B). How would Kant have analyzed the different treatment of Tom Robinson and Boo Radley by the justice system in “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Kant argued that the supreme principle of morality is a standard of rationality that he dubbed the “Categorial Imperative”. Kant characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires we may hold. All specific moral requirements, are justified by this principle, which means that all immoral actions are irrational because they violate the CI. Therefore, Kant would say the different treatments of Tom Robinson and Boo Radley in the justice system was immoral. The fundamental principle of morality which is the CI binds individuals to justice and is an autonomous will. If the justice

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture