Think about what you need to know to understand this section. Your answer might include some of the following:
What does this section do to support Kuper’s argument/alternatives
What does this section do to support Kuper’s argument/alternatives
What major claims? – What does this mean?
What evidence? What does this evidence do?
What lists? – What do these lists do?
What words/ideas do you need to know?
6 comments:
The type of evidence that Andrew Kuper uses in the passage WHAT CAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY CONTRIBUTE?, are references to American philosopher: John Rawls. Through this section Kuper shares some of the ideas that Rawls had about justice and he compares them to Singer's. For example, Rawls argues "that decent and liberal people's do have an obligation to assist burdened societies", and then Kuper refers to Singer by saying that both of these individuals identify certain groups, cosmopolitan approach, and try to create an ideal conception of justice by putting aside many important factors. Such factors are: citizenship, and morals. Kuper also utilizes many sources that used to cite Singer's words and opinions. This section uses Philosopher Rawls' as evidence to compare his believes with Singer's and point out why their argument isn't appropriate.
The first list that Andrew Kuper uses in the section titled "What Can Political Philosophy Contribute?" is the components that compile to form political philosophy. These are stated as a political economy, a theory of justice, and a political sociology. He lists these things in order to show the audience that this topic is relevant and includes various subtopics in the overall idea. By establishing the definition of political philosophy in the form of a list at the beginning of the section gives the audience a sense of what he will be discussing. Additionally, Kuper includes a list of reasons why the ideal view on justice is far from being truly ideal and is similar to something extremely and exceptionally bad. The possible actions and principles are essential to note. The list consists of reasons such as using individuals' work in order to create cumulative benefits and taking into account the consequences for a social system to make actions. He also mentions that equality and fair distribution needs to be considered better when making improvements. Kuper hopes that we will create a political economy that is relevant and realistic and that we do not mistake agents in developing countries as only poor and needy. Lastly, he lists that we need to treat our political sociology in a proper form. The purpose of this lengthy list is to inform the audience of the proper approach to the conditions and viewpoints on developing countries.
In Kuper's points one through four on pages 79 and 80, the main words and ideas that need to be known are "indispensable", "institutional change", "suboptimal", "ad hoc", and "asymmetric". Kuper talks about "indispensable" in reference to a metric and set of principles and when he says they are "indispensable", he simply means people figuring out what to do in regard to helping the poor must not go without such principles. With "institutional change", this means the way things are done in aid organizations and other such places should possibly be reconsidered altogether, rather than small parts that don't change the way of thinking in the entire organization. "Suboptimal" simply means less than the best, and he says this in reference to making choices for aid, as he says people can't settle for less than the best solution even if the decisions are difficult. When Kuper talks about "ad hoc" he says that in helping the poor, development must be sustainable rather than just "on the spot" for a single time. Essentially "ad hoc" means "on the spot", put together for a single purpose without much consideration of anything after, which is why Kuper opposes that method for helping the poor. Finally,"asymmetric" means uneven and Kuper refers to this saying that Singer doesn't distinguish fair from unfair asymmetric distributions of money, aid, etc. Inequality and asymmetry may be fair in certain instances but Singer doesn't mention anything about that.
The main claims that Andrew Kuper makes in his section titled "What Can Political Philosophy Contribute? are; that Peter Singer's idea that focusing on an ideal theory of justice is "unhelpful and irresponsible" is not correct, and that the ideal theory of justice is an important "mechanism for action right now" because it better serves the poor than does "Singer's solution". Kuper's first claim about Singer's attitude towards the ideal theory of justice shows how he is a different thinker than Singer is. This claim is preceded by an example of how Kuper and Singer somewhat agree on the solution to world poverty. Its purpose is to begin to explain how Singer's claims are incorrect. The second claim by Kuper, about the ideal theory of justice, is present to show the distinction between Singer's thinking and Kuper's thinking. Kuper follows his second claim with his seven reasons that ideal justice will help solve world poverty.
In Andrew Kuper’s academic writings, “More Than Charity: Cosmopolitan Alternatives to the ‘Singer Solution’” under the headline of What can Political Philosophy Contribute, there is a list of seven reasons it is important to have a metric for judging charity action. The last three reasons: five, six, and seven, contain many ideas and complicated language. It is essential for the reader to understand these terms in order to better grasp the piece as a whole. Vocabulary such as systemic, predicaments and undifferentiated can confuse the audience if they are not educated on their proper definitions. Systemic refers to anything pertaining to a system. Predicaments are situations that are not pleasant or may be difficult to endure. Lastly the definition of undifferentiated is to be unable to distinguish things from one another.
In the section "What Can Political Philosophy Contribute?- p78-81" alot of things helped supported Kuper's arguement. Such as when Kuper began to speak about John Rawl's theory of justice (1971) The theory starts off by stating that it begins with knowledge that the society is set up wit cooperation for an equal adavantage. The Law of Peoples (1999) is also one point in this section that contributes to the arguement as well. As stated in the text, "what basic laws and instituions form fair bases for cooperation between 'peoples' or what I have elsewhered called 'thin states'." Each of those states take into account the struggles of others. Those are the nonaggressive members. Kuper brought up these points made by Rawls to have more evidence in what he is saying also. In doing so that is how it strongly supports the arguement.
Post a Comment