Need help with your Assignment?

Get a timely done, PLAGIARISM-FREE paper
from our highly-qualified writers!

Critiquing Ethical Theories of Rights, Equality, and Justice

Critiquing Ethical Theories of Rights, Equality, and Justice

Most people argue about what should be equalized, including opportunities for welfare, primary goods, human rights, and political power. The author argues that the concept of equality should be based on what needs to be distributed equally as he cites access to economic and social opportunities. I believe that while the concept of equality has distributive implications, social equality should majorly focus on the relationships between people. Relationships could be more egalitarian or hierarchical; hence, by appealing to social equality, we primarily imply nonhierarchical and egalitarian relationships rather than distributions, which are only instrumentally valuable in establishing egalitarian relationships. Therefore, a more popular response could be to link social equality to relationships that can express recognition and respect. While discussing social equality, the author focuses on an institutional and political level. The author claims that everyone needs to be treated as social equals; hence, institutions and the state should not reinforce, establish or express hierarchical or inegalitarian relationships between people. Contrary to the author’s reasoning, social equality can be a significant moral value for developing informal social structures and individual behavior.

In the fight for equality and justice, it is important to note that there are still laws that give police officers the right to apply force and powerful police unions, which prevent on-duty incidents from being convicted or facing criminal charges. While the author argues that more cops are now being convicted of murder, such cases are rare because judges and juries are still reluctant to question the actions of police officers on duty. In most cases, the facts are often unclear for both sides because some favor the prosecution while others favor the defense. Therefore, administering equal justice becomes a problem, considering that some of the police officers being prosecuted enjoy unique advantages, making criminal conviction almost impossible.

Conclusively, although the author argues that the media has become an important whistle-blower for exposing cases of social inequality and injustices, most social media companies go through a lot of human rights dilemmas due to the efforts made by top governing bodies to silence ‘protected speech.” Most governments now seek to silence and regulate online content while using simple solutions to address complex problems just to limit public pressure. Contrary to the author’s opinion on the expansion of social media platforms, I believe that most governments are now focusing on using legislation to limit speech that is not in their favor and further silence other critics, including civil society.


We’ll write everything from scratch


Critiquing Ethical Theories of Rights, Equality, and Justice

Critiquing Ethical Theories of Rights, Equality, and Justice

INSTRUCTIONS: A critique is an evaluation; its special features are analysis and evidence to support the evaluation. Specifically, the critique you are being asked to write for this final weekly peer comment is a critique of another author’s argument—this will be the argument driving the peer author’s critical essay. What you will be focusing on in your peer critique is the reasoning behind the peer author’s position, not necessarily their skill in communicating it; that is to say, you will not be “grading” your peers’ work—you will be driving down below the surface of language (to the extent possible in this case) to analyze (take apart) the assumptions, claims, and conclusions of the peer critical essay, then evaluate (synthesize) the overall position taken in that essay.

It is extremely important to remember that you are evaluating the position and the reasoning supporting it, not the person. It is also important to note that a critique or critical commentary may be positive, negative, or a mixture of the two. We tend to use the word, “criticize,” or the expression, “being critical” with a mostly negative connotation, as in finding fault with something or “putting something (or someone) down.” That is not the intention here, although part of what you’re doing in writing a critique may indeed be finding fault. But the faults you are pointing out will have nothing to do with the author himself or herself. You will be looking for errors in reasoning and argumentation, reporting relevant facts or information, overlooking or misconstruing important points relevant to the question posed, and so on.

While precision and clarity in thought and written expression and overall comprehensibility of the written response are crucial for communicating the author’s position and supporting argumentation, your focus should be primarily directed to the position on the issue in question and the reasons advanced for why that is the correct or best position. You need not cite any sources in your critiques, but you are free to do so.

RESPONDING TO PEER: In 2023 I find it painful and ironic that philosophers were and in my opinion still should be the governing body of a country. I am a person who reads a lot especially when it comes to U.S. politics. Everyone knows politics is a dirty game. It is laughed and joked about all the time how dirty the game can be. I find it disgusting to be in college at 45 years of age going to school and doing an ethics class that is not easy, might I add, but then when I go look at our current leaders and read what is being said to one another and for race to be a huge issue in our country still says to me that education is not really a criteria for governing anymore. spiritually, we as a nation have taken a few steps back. Even those who like to use the bible as a crutch to spread hate and lies to the unfortunate are not a new thing. let us not be tricked by wolves in sheep’s clothing for they are the false profits.

fundamental equality means we should all have fundamentally equal worth at birth. There is a movie on Netflix called “WORTH,” and it is a true story about the government paying off the families of the 9/11 tragedy according to how much the government thinks an individual is worth. As you watch this movie you will see just how the system works and for who. we are not all born and seen as equal but we should be. social equality says we should all have access to social and economic opportunities. We all know this should be happening in many forms, but social equality means for all. the idea of social equality is not new and as we are seeing in living color on our T.V. since covid-19 it is still not something that is widespread. I believe social equality starts with an individual’s ambitions, work ethic, and drive. meaning how bad do you want it? certain classes of folks might not have to work as hard as you to get it but you can still go get it done if you have the drive. I am for social equality but I am for the men and women that don’t use excuses and go through what they need to in order to get where they want to be in life because I feel that represents myself.

equal treatment for equals simply states treat everyone the same unless they are different in relevant ways that cause them a legal situation. I think we are just now moving in that direction especially when it comes to seeing cops being convicted of murder. In our time, finally, police are being held to some kind of human standard while being made to wear body cameras. we still see brown kids getting more time than white kids who committed the same crimes. These things are not new but social media is. social media is the new whistle-blower in that things that used to be done in the dark have now come to light. It is the very reason some governing bodies would love to see social media disappear: you can’t be as crooked as you once could be.

I feel like all these theories have merit and can and should be used when appropriate. So far, I have not heard of one theory that we should just throw out as a whole. even in the theories of self, all have something real to offer. I believe these theories should be taught forever because they all make up the whole human race. we should treat each theory like we do most people in life, we pick up the things we like and leave the rest behind. As human beings, we have the ability to process, think and rationalize all situations and I believe that is what makes us different from animals. That is our magical ability and if you don’t think it’s magic go talk to a dementia patient and their family. when one mind is gone, so are they.

Order Solution Now