Discussion-Rawls-Nozick
Answer two of the questions below and also comment on at least one of your classmates’ answers. Clearly number each response (e.g., “1.” and “2.”) so it’s obvious which question you are addressing. Do not combine your responses; if they are not separated, they will be counted as only one answer.
Please, do not submit AI-generated answers. Such submissions will be detected and may result in embarrassment.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
