1
Justice Seminar Review Questions
The following questions should enable you to review and synthesize the course materials. Other
questions may be asked on the oral final. These are typical of the questions that will be asked, both
in their synthetic character and in their level of generality.
(1) John Rawls states that the common activity of citizenship is to be a member of a “social union of
social unions” which has the goal of upholding the two principles. In Aristotle, the citizen is
defined by his relationship to the common good. Compare and contrast Aristotle and Rawls on
this point.
(2) Rawls begins his philosophical argument by taking the reader behind the “veil of ignorance”.
Aristotle begins his argument by taking the reader back to analytical (rather than simply historical)
beginnings. Discuss the relative merits of the two approaches.
(3) Imagine that the territory of Kansas has just gotten enough citizens to apply for statehood.
Imagine further that the choice among state constitutions is to be decided by all and only the
citizens of Kansas, who must order their choices based on pair-wise comparisons. The
constitutions are the same in their essentials, except for the provisions about slavery. There are
four choices:
(i) Kansas shall be a slave state like those of the south.
(ii) Kansas shall be a free state like those of the north.
(iii) Kansas shall be half slave and half free, divided by a line running across the state
(iv) Kansas shall enslave those whose appearance makes it obvious they lack the capacity
for practical wisdom.
Now imagine a politician saying that the only rational and fair thing to do in Kansas is adopt the
slavery provision favored by the majority of the voters. Would Rawls agree? Would Aristotle?
Would Arrow? Would Lincoln? Would Douglas? Be prepared, in each case, to explain your
answer.
(4) Rawls begins his book by trying to determine appropriate principles of justice, then turns to the
institutions which would satisfy those principles and finally to individual life plans, virtues and
conceptions of the good. This seems to reverse the order found in Aristotle’s work, for Aristotle
seems to take a discussion of virtue and the human good as his starting point. Is Rawls’s approach
really a reversal? If so, is it significant? Why or why not?
(5) Explain the primary differences between Rawlsian contractualism and utilitarianism.
(6) Imagine that you were given the Table of Contents of Rawls's THEORY OF JUSTICE, but no
other part of the book. Use the Table to explain the book's structure and central arguments.
(7) Explain briefly and clearly each of the conditions Arrow imposes on social welfare functions.
Should we rethink any of those conditions, or any of the Axioms, in light of Arrow’s Theorem? If
so which one? Explain the role of that theorem in Riker’s argument for liberalism over populism.
Does Riker’s argument succeed?
2
Cass Sunstein seems to argue that individuals are insufficiently rational in their decisions, and
therefore, we may need to use state power to intervene. However, that state power would
seemingly have to represent some standard of rationality higher than incoherent individual
rationality. Arrow shows that it cannot always come from aggregating individual preferences. So
from what source does Sunstein derive the rationale for of regulation?
(8) Explain MacIntyre’s argument for the claim that modern liberal societies are unable to provide
public justifications for moral rules, being sure to say what he means by “the privatization of
good” and how the good’s privatization contributes to the impossibility of justifying moral rules.
Illustrate the privatization of good by reference to Rawls’s theory of goodness as rationality, if
possible. Would Rawls agree with MacIntyre about the justification of rules? Would Rorty? In
each case, why or why not?
(9) Let’s say that a political society is stable just in case its constitution is an equilibrium state as
Riker defines that notion.

Explain what it means to say that a constitution is an equilibrium state of a political
system.

Rawls seems to think that a well-ordered society would be stable democracy. Explain how
he thinks it is stabilized.

What does Aristotle think poses the greatest threat to the stability of democracy and how
does he think that threat should be averted?

What does the Lincoln of the Lyceum address think is the greatest threat to the stability of
American democracy and how does he think that threat can be averted?

What does Douglas think is the greatest threat to the stability of the American constitution
and how does he think that threat should be averted?

Explain why Riker thinks democratic politics is always in disequilibrium. Does it follow
that Riker thinks democratic societies are unstable? Why or why not?
(10) On Friday, December 6, 2013 the New York Times ran a front-page story entitled “Congress
Nears Modest Accord on the Budget”. The story opened by saying:
House and Senate negotiators on Thursday closed in on a budget deal that, while modest
in scope, could break the cycle of fiscal crises and brinkmanship that has hampered the
economic recovery and driven public opinion of Congress to an all-time low.
Explain the federal budgeting process, being sure to explain sequestration and why it is in force
and to explain the categories of spending (e.g. mandatory vs. discretionary). Also explain what the
federal debt ceiling is and why it needs to be raised periodically. Then explain the “fiscal crises
and brinksmanship” that afflicted the country this fall and why Congress must now reach the
budget deal referred to in the quote above.
3
In your view, is sequestration a mistake or a responsible and non-partisan way to cut the budget?
Do you think a modest short-term budget deal “break the cycle of fiscal crises and brinkmanship”
and, even if it would, is securing one a good idea or should the two parties try to reach a so-called
“Grand Bargain”?
(11) This semester, we have encountered a number of conceptions of the public good:
The maximization of total utility
The maximization of average utility
A distribution of rights, liberties and economic goods which is Pareto efficient
The satisfaction of Rawls’s two principles of justice
A state of affairs in which everyone capable of the Aristotelian virtues exercises those
virtues over a complete life
A state of affairs in which satisfies the rational and fair amalgamation of individual
preferences
A state of affairs that does whatever is dictated by popular sovereignty, as ascertained by a
majority vote over two alternatives.
A state of affairs in which the good of the partnership is realized
A conception of the right, based upon an adequately determinate conception of the good,
implemented in a concrete community
Which, if any of them, is the best way to understand the public good for a modern liberal
democracy? Be prepared to defend your answer. What is wrong with those conceptions of the
public good that are not the best?