1. Rawls vs. Nozick
You are a lawyer representing an unknown client in writing the constitution for a new nation of Freedonia. Argue for either John Rawlss conception of the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle (which Nozick would reject if it entails government action to redress inequalities of opportunity) and the Difference Principle or for Robert Nozicks principles of justice in holdings as part of that constitution. Present arguments for both sides on this positionincluding especially Nozicks Wilt Chamberlain examplecritique both arguments (based on critiques from readings or class) and provide your own original response to the critiques of the position you support
Formal requirements:
Essay should be 3-4 pages (1000-1200 words) double-spaced, 12 pt. font with one inch margins. Pages should be numbered, with a title page that is not numbered. There should be no footnotes. Any notes should be endnotes. If you cite sources, you may use any established style guide, but philosophers use Chicago style. Here is a quick on-line reference for Chicago style citations.
General Outline for Trial Essays
Introduction
Set up the case:
o Describe the circumstances of the trial
State and describe the charges relating to those circumstances.
Preview the reasons for your verdict.
State your verdict (guilty/not-guilty, in favor of plaintiff or defendant).
Body paragraphs (not necessary exactly one paragraph for each of the below):
State and explain the theories/positions in the trial.
Explain how one theory/position entails one verdict and the other theory/position entails the other verdict.
Arguments for a guilty (for-the-plaintiff verdict) verdict: Select one or two strongest arguments for that verdict and do the following for each.
State the premises of the argument.
Explain how these premises are supposed to support their conclusion.
Critique and evaluate those premises/that reasoning.
o Give reasons to reject the argument
If you support the argument, respond to these reasons.
Repeat with another argument if possible.
Arguments for a not-guilty (for-the-defendant) verdict: Select one or two strongest arguments for a not-guilty verdict and do the following for each.
State the premises of the argument.
Explain how these premises are supposed to support their conclusion.
Critique and evaluate those premises/that reasoning.
o Give reasons to reject the argument
If you support the argument, respond to these reasons.
Repeat with another argument if possible.
Conclusion:
Restate your thesis.
Review the reasons you gave for your thesis.
Summarize how you responded to the objection to your thesis.
