1) Rawls argues that inequalities are only just if they benefit the least advantaged, while Nozick defends individuals’ right to keep what they earn. In today’s economy — shaped by billionaires, automation, and wage gaps—which view seems more justifiable, and why?
************************************************************************************
2) Nozick believes the state should only protect basic rights (life, liberty, property), while Rawls supports redistributive policies. Considering issues like healthcare access or student debt, what level of government involvement in economic justice feels morally right to you?
*******************************************************************************
3) Rawls asks us to imagine making social rules from behind a “veil of ignorance,” not knowing our class, gender, or race. If you had to design society that way today, what major change—economic, political, or social—would you prioritize first, and why?
________________________________________________________________________
1. Please make your initial post substantive (10 or more sentences).
Part II
The Leadership Repertoire/Styles (300 words)
With regard to the “Leadership Repertoire” (the Six Leadership Styles) that we find in Primal Leadership, Goleman writes: “Resonance stems not just from leaders’ good moods or ability to say the right thing, but also from whole sets of coordinated activities that comprise particular leadership styles. Typically, the best, most effective leaders act according to one or more of the six distinct approaches to leadership and skillfully switch between the various styles depending on the situation.
Four of these styles -- visionary, coaching, affiliative, and the democratic -- create the kind of resonance that boosts performance, while two others -- pacesetting and commanding -- although useful in some very specific situations, should be applied with caution.
Although the styles of leadership have all been identified previously by different names, [He is referring to the changes made to the content contained in the Harvard Business Review articles from the 1990s.], what’s new about our model of leadership [based on new research] is an understanding of the underlying emotional intelligence capabilities that each approach requires, and -- most compelling -- each style’s causal link with outcomes. The research, in other words, allows us to see how each style actually affects climate, and therefore performance. For executives engaged in the daily battle of getting results, such a connection adds a much-needed dose of science to the critical art of leadership." (53-54)
Resources for part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhWkNZacRVE
Sample Answer
Rawls vs. Nozick on Economic Inequality
In today’s economy, characterized by extreme wealth concentration, rapid automation, and stagnant wage growth for many, John Rawls's view on justice seems more justifiable than Robert Nozick's. Nozick's Entitlement Theory argues that as long as wealth is acquired justly (through voluntary exchange and without coercion), the resulting distribution—no matter how unequal—is just. However, this view fails to account for the systemic nature of today's inequalities. The rise of billionaires is often less about pure individual desert and more about market structures, policy choices, network effects, and inherited advantages that compound rapidly.
Rawls's Difference Principle—that economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged—offers a necessary moral constraint on these outcomes. In a society where technological advancement and globalization have lifted the top but left the bottom significantly behind, a purely Nozickian system risks creating a morally indefensible permanent underclass. Since no rational person would agree to that risk behind the Veil of Ignorance, Rawls's model provides a more stable and ethically compelling framework by insisting that the basic structure of society must continually work to maximize the well-being of those at the bottom.
2. Government Involvement in Economic Justice
Considering critical issues like healthcare access and crushing student debt, the morally right level of government involvement strongly favors a Rawlsian redistributive state over Nozick’s minimal state. Nozick believes the government’s role should be limited to protecting basic rights (life, liberty, property) and enforcing contracts. However, for citizens to have a genuine "liberty" worth having, they require certain primary social goods. Access to healthcare is essential for maintaining one's physical and mental capacity to function as a productive, equal citizen; treating it solely as a market commodity compromises true equality of opportunity.
Similarly, large-scale student debt acts as a structural barrier, limiting educational opportunities for the poor and middle class and undermining the very ideal of a meritocracy. The government has a moral responsibility to intervene—through regulation, public financing, or direct provision—to secure these foundational goods. This intervention is not about charity; it is about establishing a fair social contract that guarantees the basic conditions necessary for all citizens to pursue their life plans effectively.
3. Priority Behind the Veil of Ignorance
If I had to design society from behind Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance today—not knowing my future gender, race, health, or class—the major change I would prioritize first is guaranteeing equitable access to high-quality capital (financial and technical resources) and development (mentorship and networking) for all new business and entrepreneurial ventures.