Part A) Stories provide us with a rich understanding of people's perspectives and reasons for why they act the way they do, but how useful are they to resolving ethical dilemmas? Are narratives better than principles for determining whether actions are right and wrong and people praiseworthy or blameworthy?

In your response, be sure to explain one way theorists use narratives to inform ethical reasoning (e.g. first-person narratives or meta-narratives and counter-stories.) Then, identify and assess one strength and one weakness of narrative approaches to ethics in comparison to principled approaches to ethics, like Utilitarianism or Kantian Deontology.

Part B. Debates concerning how we fund public education for children grades K-12 crop up frequently in political debates. On the one hand, there are those who advocate robust funding for public education. On the other hand, there are those who argue for a more highly privatized system of education. How might we use the idea of a social contract to resolve this debate? 

In your response, be sure to focus on Rawls' version of the social contract. First, provide a description of the original position and the veil of ignorance. Then, identify what policy recommendation we would adopt if reasoning from behind the veil of ignorance.

Finally, explain whether you agree or disagree with this conclusion. If you agree, identify one strength of original position reasoning that supports your view. If you disagree, identify one weakness of original position reasoning that supports your view.

Instructions

Please label each answer A or B accordingly.

Part A

Story narratives are useful in solving ethical problems as they provide a methodological analysis of the problem and are not merely principle-driven.

Narratives are better than principles to determine any action or agent as morally right or wrong inasmuch as it considers an individual's moral values. Choices, autonomy and related consequences by providing communication on it.

Narrative theorists, for example, interpreters of Bhagavad Gita consider that Arjuna was advised to fight in the battlefield when he was reluctant, because it was his duty to fight and get over his moral dilemma.

A strength of Utilitarianism in comparison to Narrativism is that  it promotes non-prejudices and non-discrimination firstly in order to maximize pleasure. But does not include values, individual's rights, analyzing the whole situation and subjectivits understanding of moral choices. 

A positive point of Kantian deontological ethics is that it takes into consideration a universality of any action, to imbibe equality in general but it does not concern with the conditions of an individual and his subjective choices, unlike narrativists approach.

Part B

Rawl's social construct will speak in favour of public education. Public education not only levels out the playing field for the privileged and underprivileged but lase provides maximum freedom for the maximum people. The veil of ignorance will allow people to see beyond personal benefits. The liberty principle and the difference principle substantiate the reasoning in favor of a public education. 

I agree with John Rawl's. Privatization will make the vast majority of citizens vulnerable to the wills of the profit making companies.

Step-by-step explanation

Part A

The widely known ancient Indian text 'Bhagavad Gita' from the epic 'Mahabharata' is a classic example of ethical decision making in dilemmatic situations. The plot is based on the life experience on the battlefield. The Pandava prince Arjuna faces a situation where the Pandavas ( Emperors of Indraprastha, sons of the King Pandu) are to call a battle against their own cousin brothers Kauravas who cheated Pandavas, their teachers and gurus to win the kingdom. Arjuna, an expert in archery and disciple of Lord Krishna initially prepares his best to fight but in the actual time of the beginning of the grand war, gets disheartened with the thought of killing his own relatives and teachers. Lord Krishna recites great advice to Arjuna which is collected in Chapter wise, as a conversation (Krishna- Arjuna Sanvaad) in the holy Bhagavad Gita. 

The moral dilemma of Arjuna is about whether to fight or not. Krishna advocates that Arjun should stand strong and perform his duties detachedly, without thinking of the fruit of his actions. 

The narrative form of Bhagavad Gita provides a thorough and two way understanding of the ethical issue at the warfield. Firstly Arjuna is reluctant to fight but Krishna convinces him to give away the consequences of fighting and it is the only just act to kill 'Adharma' or iniquity of Kauravas. 

Narrativist theorists claim, again Principlism, that using narrative stories is an alternative method for a better understanding of the elements of ethical life. It exerts narrative concepts and  its modus operandi derived from literary critical theories  and philosophy as tools for analyzing moral dilemmas.  Narrative is not only a form of communication, it also human life that too specifically the moral life, comprehensible. 

The interpreters of Bhagavad Gita view the Chapter of 'karmayoga', where Arjuna is advised to fight without thinking about the fruit of his actions; as an action-oriented solution to his problem. Being disinterested about one's actions is the ideal way to live a moral life.

The first deontological ethics were preached before Kantian ethics came into being, to perform 'duty for the sake of duty.'

Another approach of theorists is spiritual. A Mystic Philosopher like R.D. Ranade considers the Bhagavad Gita as a philosophy of God- Realisation. Arjuna's dilemma let him receive the ultimate knowledge from his guru (spiritual teacher) Lord Krishna. Krishna favoured the battle because Arjuna was only aiming at the mortal bodies of his opponents and soul is eternal and cannot be destroyed. It was a pre-decided sequence by God (Lord Krishna himself) to kill the devil and Arjuna was a mere reason to do so. 

Utilitarian approach to Narrativism:

Utilitarians work on the principle of maximum pleasure. If an action gains pleasure then it is morally right. In comparison with Narrativism, utilitarianism lacks inclusion of values, individual's rights, analyzing of the whole situation and subjectivits understanding of moral choices. 

In the illustration we considered, Utilitarians would not have approved thoroughly the choice to fight as a moral decision as it would cause a huge damage afterwards, although the war was based on justice, that is why winning it would benefit the people of the empire. This is a strength of utilitarianism that it promotes non-prejudices and non-discrimination.

Kantian Approach:

Kantian approach will differ from Narrativists approach as it is solely based on objective universal principles. Kant says that any act should be done as if it is a universally accepted law. This does not take into action the situation which allows a good communication to resolve any ethical dilemma. On the other hand Kantian deontology promotes a principle 'duty for its sake' which can be suitably applied in subjective situations. 

A weakness in Kantian theory is that it considers only an objective point of view of moral agents and sides the rights and subjective choices.  Kant duty matters, but narrativism asserts that it is not only principles that matter but the methodology to analyze a dilemma/situation to perform duty is essential too. 

Part B

The concept of the state of nature, created by prior scholars such as Rousseau, has been supplanted more as of late with a speculative circumstance created by John Rawls. This theoretical circumstance replaces the state of nature with a more hopeful circumstance, named by Rawls, as the first position, which contains the culminate components for the common advancement of equity. This advancement of equity, inside the theoretical circumstance, gives great ethical reason to comply with the laws

The agents of the citizens in this hypothetical framework would have no foreordained information of the individuals they would be speaking to. They would be beneath a 'veil of ignorance' and so, the contrast between the budgetary victory, social status, sex, ethnicity, and common capacities of each person within the framework would not play any part within the social interaction and choices of the agents. In this way any laws that were created would be done so beneath this shroud of ignorance resulting within the cancellation of separation inside the laws, giving a great ethical reason to comply with them. It is Rawls' conviction that the agents of the individuals who are beneath the veil of numbness within the unique position would inevitably start to actualize the guideline of 'maximum rule' as an apparatus for evaluating any potential circumstance which will emerge.

In other words, the agents of the citizens would look for decisions that would result within the greatest sum of payoff in the event that and when the most exceedingly bad circumstances were to happen . Thus, a sort of social uniformity in which all people inside the system acquire as many social products as is permitted within the most exceedingly bad conceivable result. In this way, any laws that would be created would be put in place to have the greatest sum of payoff and anticipate the most exceedingly bad circumstances to happen. In spite of the fact that John Rawls' logic advocates a reasonable and free framework in which social and financial contrasts among the citizens are implied to be imperceptible, these contrasts still definitely exist. Rawls traces two more standards that must be accomplished in order for these imbalances to exist without debasing the potential framework and the laws inside it. The primary rule, known as the 'liberty principle', builds up that all people must have the greatest degree of freedom which is consistent with the freedom of all . In spite of the fact that the freedom guideline does not bargain specifically with any of the potential future imbalances inside the law and society that might emerge, it is a basic instrument in understanding Rawls' objective of making a few degrees of balance among bunches.

The moment guideline that Rawls builds up as an essential device for combating imbalance, and in this way making sound ethical premises for complying with the law, is known as the distinction guideline . The difference principle states, firstly, that all positions are to be open to all beneath reasonable balance of opportunity notwithstanding of such traits as riches, social standing, ethnicity, sex, and normal capacities and furthermore that unequal dispersion is as it were worthy in the event that the imbalance benefits those who are the most exceedingly bad off inside the society . As Companion (2006) pleasantly outlined 'Only in the event that a rising tide really does carry all vessels upward, can financial imbalances be permitted in a fair society.

Hence through Rawl's perspective the veil of ignorance will allow people to aim for maximum good of all and the best chances of equal opportunities regardless of what social standing they belong to. In a worst case scenario for any individual the availability of public education might be the only source of education for them. Privatisation of schools only betters the quality of education in the best case scenario.

The liberty principle would also advocate for public education as even though it might limit freedom for some however it is the only way the vast majority of citizens have been able to afford education. Hence it maximises freedom for all. It allows even underprivileged people to apply for the same colleges and similar jobs as rich people and helps them break the glass ceiling.

Public school is also necessary for the difference principle as it levels out opportunities and is to the maximum benefit of the poor. It also sets out the possibility of a disproportionate growth of two different classes. The wealth gap would only grow if the poor and the rich received differentiated education or the poor didn't have an option of getting education at all.

I agree with Rawl's position. Education for private profit will rake up the prices to an extent where it might as well be a luxury.The state interference for the maximum benefit for the maximum people is crucial.