xPHM 4340 – Contemporary Political ThoughtEXAM 2 ReviewThe second exam will take place on Thursday, November 3rd. The exam will be some combination of multiple choice, true/false, matching, short answer, and essay questions. The bulk of the exam will be short answer and essay.The exam covers the readings on distributive justice, freedom, and equality.Distributive JusticeBe able to explain the problem of distributive justice.The problem of identifying principles that specify the just distribution of benefits and burdens in a society- the outcome of the principles being that every person gets what she/ he is due. We face this because of our scarce resource view.Be able to explain Ehrenreich’s experiences and her evaluation of these experiences in Nickel and Dimed. -Worked as a low-wage worker for a maid company-only paid 6.65 an hour-Surprised and offended which one is required to surrendered one's basic civil rights-Drug testing, even though it was done in a private manner, she degraded to have to perform it at the command of some powerful other-Psychological effect= treated as an untrustworthy person, you may come to think that what you are paid is what you are actually worth.-Rules against gossip or even talking about someone-Her big question was,’’Why will people not with low-paying jobs stand where they demand better wages and work conditions? Be able to explain Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice – including all the principles of the entitlement theory of justice.Nozicks entitlement theory of justice: A distribution is just as long as each person is entitled to the holdings he/she has. 1. of justice in acquisition: how to acquire a holding justly from nature. 2. of justice in transfer: how to transfer holdings justly. 3. of justice in rectification: how to correct an earlier injustice.Be able to explain why Nozick thinks that talking about the problem of distributive justice is misleading.Talk about “distributive justice” is inherently misleading, Nozick argues, in that it seems to imply that there is some central authority who “distributes” to individuals shares of wealth and income that pre-exist the distribution, as if they had appeared like “manna from heaven.”Be able to explain the difference between historical and end-result principles ofjustice.End-result theories: the justice of a distribution depends on who has what, judged structurally-identity of persons doesn't matter. Ex. utilitarianism (maximize welfare)Historical theories: the justice of a distribution depends on how it came about. Ex. Locke( Monetary exchange, Labor theory)Be able to explain and give examples of patterned theories of justice.Patterned Theory of Justice: the justice of a distribution depends on its matching some natural dimension(s).Examples: the distribution is equal, or it maximizes utility, or it allocates goods according to personal merit, or it meets urgent material needs. Be able to summarize and explain the Wilt Chamberlain argument. Make sure that you can explain the purpose of the argument. (From Wikipedia)Nozick's famous Wilt Chamberlain argument is an attempt to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty. He asks us to assume that the original distribution in society, D1 is ordered by our choice of patterned principle, for instance Rawls's Difference Principle. Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popular basketball player in this society, and Nozick further assumes 1 million people are willing to freely give Wilt 25 cents each to watch him play basketball over the course of a season (we assume no other transactions occur). Wilt now has $250,000, a much larger sum than any of the other people in the society. The new distribution in society, call it D2, obviously is no longer ordered by our favored pattern that ordered D1. However Nozick argues that D2 is just. For if each agent freely exchanges some of his D1 share with WC and D1 was a just distribution (we know D1 was just, because it was ordered according to your favorite patterned principle of distribution), how can D2 fail to be a just distribution? Thus Nozick argues that what the Wilt Chamberlain example shows is that no patterned principle of just distribution will be compatible with liberty. In order to preserve the pattern, which arranged D1, the state will have to continually interfere with people's ability to freely exchange their D1 shares, for any exchange of D1 shares explicitly involves violating the pattern that originally ordered it.Be able to explain why Nozick thinks that redistribution is a violation of property rights.Redistributive policies often claim that while individuals may have positive ethical duties to aid poor or unwell persons, it is morally impermissible to compel them to do so through state-administered tax and transfer or other means, unless universal consent for these policies can be secured. Nozick feels taxation involves redistribution through violation (or at least infringement) of property rights . May need some help on this oneBe able to summarize and explain Hayek’s argument that the concept of social justice does not apply in complex societies that are governed by abstract rules and norms.Be able to explain the context of Ackerman’s argument in “On Getting What We Don’t Deserve.”Just explain what the story is about. Note how Ackerman is for egalitarianism: the distribution of goods should be equal.Be able to explain the kinds of things that Ackerman is concerned with in the essay and why we don’t deserve them. You do no deserve them if you did not earn them. Things are rich jobs, inheritance, genes, biologically, birth place,Be able to explain Ackerman’s argument that purely historical principles of distributive justice lead fail to treat people with the respect they deserve as persons.Be able to fully summarize and explain Nielsen’s argument that socialism better promotes well-being, rights, autonomy, equality, and justice.Nielsen argues against capitalism with the counter argument that socialism is not against democracy, but has more benefits: “Capitalist acts… if they become sufficiently widespread lead to severe imbalances in power.Certain individuals would win out in this exchanging of commodities and in fairly quick order it would lead to… the domination of the many by the few—that I would take to be definitive of capitalism.”Autonomy- socialism protects more extensive