First Task: The Exercise for Your Imagination
John Rawls introduces his reader to several concepts fundamental to a thorough account of the idea of justice: Liberty; equality; rights; and fairness. But he is deservedly of philosophical interest because of the way he fulfills his aim, which is “...To present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as found in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant” (Pojman 620, Lt). Rawls introduces an imaginary device in order to establish the conditions under which “the principles of justice for the basic structure of society...would (be accepted)” (620 Lm). It is these conditions, Rawls’ “initial position of equality,” and his device for establishing them, “the veil of ignorance,” that I would have you think about for your exercise (620 Lm and 620 Rm): “The veil of ignorance...ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances” (620 Rm).

As an exercise of the imagination, you are asked, as Rawls asks us all, to imagine yourself in the “initial position of equality” under “the veil of ignorance.” Discover for yourself if doing so is or is not conducive to a genuine sense of fairness, as you prepare to make “one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely ...the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions” (621 Lt).

Second Task: The Writing Assignment
Please number your responses:
1. Describe your experience. Take the time to do so as completely as you are able.
2. How did this exercise affect your understanding of the section titled “The Reasoning Leading to the Two Principles of Justice” (624 Lm). It requires an effort to do so, but try to justify your response with direct reference to your own experience of imagining and reading, not to associations or thoughts gathered from any other source. Provide\ relevant quotations to focus your reader’s attention.
3. Relate your experience to Rawls’ “Two Principles of Justice,” especially concerning his denying “exchanges between basic liberties and economic and social benefits” (624 Rb). Be as descriptive as you are able, using direct quotations as support.
4. What is your opinion of Rawls’ “General Conception” (627 Rb)? Use quotations to assist in your explanation.

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions,  genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense. 

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

Answer the following questions on the text below:

Text to evaluate:
OPINION: No, COVID-19 vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination should not be instated to 'protect the health and safety of Canadians'

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh was quoted last week with the suggestion that public servants who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine could be disciplined and ultimately fired using existing collective agreement clauses.
The leader of Canada's most labor-friendly party recommends these worker dismissals in order to "protect the health and safety of Canadians." This logic is so blatantly flawed that it calls Singh's leadership, and that of other Canadian politicians supporting this view, into question. It's so bad that it makes me suspect that these politicians are in the pocket of big pharma. Conflict of interest in government is rife, as well all know.
 

These charlatans want to prevent the unvaccinated from having basic rights like the right to travel, work, and live normal lives. They think we should stab vaccines even into the people that can't be vaccinated according to their own doctors - if they are immunocompromised or have an allergy. What is to become of these people?
It's unclear if the vaccines work, anyway. The trials conducted by the vaccine manufacturers have only recorded whether vaccinated people were less likely to get symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated. The trials did not check for a reduction in "cases" as measured by positive SARS-CoV-2 tests without symptoms, nor in COVID-19 hospitalizations or deaths.
 

They also did not attempt to understand the impact of the vaccines on transmission. The interim authorization of the vaccines was based on their efficacy in reducing what amounts to cold symptoms in the vaccinated person.
Since the start of the mass vaccinations, researchers worldwide have examined whether vaccination does reduce the spread of COVID as a positive side effect. While it seems plausible that such an effect might occur, the results are meager. Some studies found modest reductions in the spread of the original SARS-CoV-2 variant, a far cry from "stopping" transmission. Those rogue scientists who call the vaccines a miracle cure are certainly not the smartest ones.
With the Delta variant, the effect has further shrunk and in a CDC-funded study, vaccinated individuals carried similar viral loads as the unvaccinated. According to the CDC, people who are double vaccinated can still spread the delta variant. According to recent research, hundreds of people who have been hospitalized with covid have had at least one vaccination. This shows that the vaccine does not prevent the transmission of the virus.
 

Countries like Israel and Iceland that have achieved high vaccination rates in the population are currently seeing their "case" counts rise dramatically. In the last two weeks, Israel's COVID-19 death count is now also following this concerning trajectory. This could have happened only if the vaccine was ineffective. It's clear what we should make of this.
Meanwhile, the province of Ontario with over 70% twice-vaccinated people is preparing for a fourth wave and already has significantly more cases, hospitalizations, and deaths than one year ago, when nobody was vaccinated. Perhaps being vaccinated is making people more willing to engage in risky behavior, so it in fact increases the danger rather than decreasing it.
 

So, what is a vaccine passport supposed to prove? What are vaccination mandates meant to achieve? Before Delta, vaccinated individuals may have been slightly less contagious than the unvaccinated. But with Delta, there does not appear to be a difference in spreading the virus. If anything, the vaccine works to protect the recipient only.
It is therefore nobody's business to know whether another person is vaccinated or not. And there is no reason to expect, pressure, or require another person to "take the jab." The campaign to vaccinate children and young adults is particularly offensive since they bear all the risks from short- and long-term adverse events and obtain no measurable benefits from the shot. Because there is a little protective effect, the advantages for individuals' safety are outweighed by the infringements on individuals' privacy. Expecting people to reveal their vaccine status before going on a plane to prevent covid is like asking people to reveal their financial status before entering a store to prevent thievery. There is no reason to think it would work, it infringes on people's privacy, and it's discriminatory. If this "financial status" policy was suggested by stores no one would accept it. And neither should we accept vaccine passports.
 

Requiring vaccine passports is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Some people have good reasons not to take the vaccine. I can't even pronounce most of the ingredients that go into these medications. Forcing people to be injected with something so unnatural can't be justified. Results from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) for the period of September 1 to December 12, 2020 show that over 23% of Canadians (excluding residents of the territories) aged 12 and older reported being unwilling to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Since nearly a quarter of Canadians are hesitant, we must respect the will of the people.

When we let the government chip away at our freedoms, who knows where it will end. Will the flu vaccine have similar mandates? If so, will our vaccine status also be made public? And if we allow this, what will stop them making all our private health information public, for anyone to see? We need to think carefully, or we could end up with no privacy at all.

Questions:

-Do a broad standardization of the main text below.

-Then evaluate the arguments in the article. You can structure this evaluation any way you prefer, for example, in order of when things are mentioned in the article or by theme (e.g., all fallacies in one section, all rhetorical devices in one section). Ensure that you discuss:
-Use of rhetoric/language in the article.
-Evaluate any particular argument types that you recognize(e.g., conditional arguments, categorical arguments, generalizations, causal argument, analogical, that you find in the main text (if there are relevant arguments in supplementary texts that are used to back up the claims in the main text, you can evaluate these too).
-Comment on and evaluate any fallacies you find in the text
-Comment on the strength of any remaining inferences and plausibility of any unsupported premises (may require research)
-Give an overall conclusion of whether the argument is good or bad, weighing up the evidence you have previously evaluated.