Difficulty: Medium

Average Score: 50%

Addressing inequities that result from interactions between economic activity and large-scale ecological processes requires a theory of justice that takes into account how those interactions affect relative social position-the distribution of benefits and burdens in a society. For theorist John Rawls, the evaluation of relative social position is based on certain "primary goods"-consisting of rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. In contrast, Martha Nussbaum bases this evaluation on central human functional capabilities, or conditions that make it possible for people to achieve things, such as "being able to have good health" and "being able to move freely from place to place." While some of Nussbaum's "capabilities" address the same "goods" that concern Rawls, income and wealth play a less central role in her theory. A person's capabilities, Nussbaum argues, are what indicate whether circumstances will allow that person to translate the things he or she has into actual achievements. Nussbaum's approach rightly suggests that identifying injustice in the distribution of benefits and harms that result from human interactions with the environment ultimately requires assessing how environmental conditions affect people's capacities. Such a theory of justice would certainly help societies as they face the real conflict between protecting environmental conditions necessary for basic capabilities and engaging in certain kinds of economic productivity.

In the context of the passage, the first paragraph serves primarily to

Rationale

highlight significant differences between two theories of justice in terms of their relevance for addressing certain inequities.

The first paragraph of the passage contrasts the theories of justice proposed by John Rawls and Martha Nussbaum, emphasizing how each evaluates social position and justice differently. This comparison is essential to understanding their respective approaches to addressing inequities resulting from economic activity and ecological processes.

A (outline in brief the passage author's argument regarding certain inequities and theories of justice) YOUR ANSWER

While the first paragraph does touch on inequities and theories of justice, it does not merely outline the author's argument. Instead, it focuses specifically on contrasting the two theorists' views, making this choice too broad and less precise in capturing the paragraph's purpose.

C (anticipate challenges to the conclusion reached at the end of the second paragraph) YOUR ANSWER

The first paragraph does not anticipate challenges or counterarguments; rather, it presents an introductory comparison of Rawls and Nussbaum's theories. Anticipating challenges would imply a critical engagement with their ideas, which is not the focus of this section.

D (raise questions about how effectively an existing theory of justice has addressed certain inequities) YOUR ANSWER

Although the paragraph discusses theories of justice, it does not raise questions about their effectiveness. Instead, it delineates the differences in how each theory approaches the topic of inequities, without questioning their adequacy.

E (respond to opposing views that call into question the passage author's main conclusion) YOUR ANSWER

The first paragraph does not engage with opposing views or responses to critiques of the theories discussed. It primarily serves to differentiate between the two theories rather than to counter any opposing arguments.

Conclusion

In summary, the first paragraph effectively highlights the significant differences between Rawls and Nussbaum's theories of justice and their implications for addressing inequities. By focusing on how each theorist evaluates social position, the author sets the stage for a deeper discussion of justice in relation to economic and ecological interactions. This comparative approach is vital for understanding the nuances of justice theory as it relates to real-world challenges.

Related Questions

View all