Fair Division
The problem of how resources can be fairly distributed has remained at the forefront of political, academic, and social life for centuries. According to political scientist Steven J. Brams (1996) and mathematician Alan D. Taylor (1996), the issue of fair division can be traced back to the Hebrew Bible, with King Solomon’s proposal to divide a baby in two in order to appease the claims of two mothers. Within the last century, questions regarding the fair division and allocation of property have arisen throughout various spheres—divorce claims, estate settlements, assessments of taxes—and attempts to solve these dilemmas have increased as well (Brams & Taylor 1996). It is my intention with this essay to better understand this issue of fair division by looking at two permutations of the fair division problem. I would like to look at two existing methods—Divider-Chooser and the Method of Sealed Bids—and criteria—cooperation, rationality, privacy, symmetry—in order to examine the ways in which people have used mathematical devices to guarantee a fair share. However, it is also my intention with this essay to a introduce a new criteria—manipulation—to see how it coexists with the existing criteria, and how well it works in accordance with the two methods.
One historical problem concerning a fair share has been the selection of a new king from a list of several candidates, such that each candidate receives a fair share at the chance to become king. According to Theodore P. Hill (2000), there exist many legends explaining attempts to solve this problem—Darius became king when his horse was the first to neigh at the city walls, and O’Neill became king under the rule that “he who first touches Irish soil will be monarch,” by chopping off his left hand and tossing it ashore ahead of his competitors. The problem with these methods was that they lacked a central organizing premise, such that each participant would be satisfied that they received a fair shot.
Imagine that little Hank and little Johnny have just mowed the backyard for their parents. As a reward for their efforts, Hank and Johnny’s parents give them a box of pastries from the local bakery. There are muffins, éclairs, cookies, and even a few Russian teacakes.
Skyrms’ explorations in Evolution of the Social Contract are based on the premise that human beings are, in fact, inclined to behave justly. His writings do not aim to prove that individuals act justly all the time; however they assert that the disposition exists in societies. Many would take issue with Skyrms’ assertion. Firstly, justice has many interpretations. According to some, equal division of a resource is not always what justice requires. Skyrms fails to address situations where an individual may have worked harder than another for a resource, and invested more time in it. Perhaps one individual would obtain more utility from a given amount of a resource than another would. Libertarians would demand property rights, and argue that one individual might better utilize the resource than the other, creating more benefit for society. Skyrms also fails to give specific interpretations of justice and does not offer any thoughts on what ideas of justice, if any, are cultural universals.
..., and continued to fight for what he wanted in life; which was his freedom. As the narrator of the story, he presents himself as a very reasonable man. He allows himself to see both sides to any issue throughout his story, and he was always able to share his thoughts and deep feeling. I believe that with the more hardships that Douglass was faced with, the stronger he became as a man. Douglass stated, “Sincerely and earnestly hoping that this little book may do something toward throwing light on the American slave system, and hastening the glad day of deliverance to the millions of my brethren in bonds- faithfully relying upon the power of truth, love, and justice, for success in my humble efforts- and solemnly pledging my self anew to the sacred cause, - I subscribe myself” (Douglass). There was no better person to tell his story, then Frederick Douglass himself.
From before the country’s conception to the war that divided it and the fallout that abolished it, slavery has been heavily engrained in the American society. From poor white yeoman farmers, to Northern abolitionist, to Southern gentry, and apathetic northerners slavery transformed the way people viewed both their life and liberty. To truly understand the impact that slavery has had on American society one has to look no further than those who have experienced them firsthand. Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave and advocate for the abolitionist, is on such person. Douglass was a living contradiction to American society during his time. He was an African-American man, self-taught, knowledgeable, well-spoken, and a robust writer. Douglass displayed a level of skill that few of his people at the time could acquire. With his autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave Written by Himself, Douglass captivated the people of his time with his firsthand accounts into the horror and brutality that is the institution of slavery.
To explain the link between unequal distribution of property and factions, Madison first clarifies the origin of unequal distribution of property. He states people are born with different talents, attitudes, and physical/mental powers. These inherent qualities he called faculties are rewarded by society. According to Madison, “From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession degrees and kinds of property immediately results. (Page 64)” Society prizes some faculties and disregards other, based on people’s needs and culture norms. This fact makes people who were born with compelling aptness will be rewarded more property than others. When a society is liberal, the goal of government is to protect the individual’s rights and property. Since individuals will always have different faculties, the diversity in the faculties of men will always lead to unequal distribution of property.
There were many influential people who fought for the abolition of slavery in the 1800s. Among these people are Harriet Tubman, William Lloyd Garrison, and our sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln. Frederick Douglass is one of these people. As a former slave, Frederick Douglass believed he could not enjoy his freedom while the rest of his people suffered under the burden of slavery. Therefore, he spent much of his adult life working to abolish slavery. Frederick Douglass was a notable figure in the abolitionist movements in the 1800s and is still honored today.
Frederick Douglass spent his first 7 years of life on Captain Anthony’s farm, working in the house. Here, he had a much easier time than those who worked in the fields. Those who worked in the field were treated poorly like most southern slaves. Slaves received little to no food, few clothes, and often slept on the ground with no bed. Frederick spent his time working in the house, until he was given to Captain Anthony’s son in law’s brother, Hugh Auld. Douglass moved to Baltimore and lived a much freer life in the city. In Baltimore, he received some education from Sophia, Hugh’s wife, and received much better treatment than slaves in the south. This was because most slave owners did not want their peers to see them as vicious and cruel. Also, the north had a much different economy than the south. Slaves worked in factories or shops and could take on work outside of their holder’s trade. This made the north a much different place than the south with views on what freed or enslaved blacks could do.
The issue of global wealth redistribution has become an increasingly fundamental topic in our globalized world. The vast amount of literature on this topic has left philosophers and economists to seek questions on whether there is a duty to redistribute wealth and in what way it should be distributed globally. The uncertainty over this remains a key impediment to real life progress. Nevertheless, the crucial aspect of this debate is to understand whether individuals have an obligation to redistribute wealth internationally. There are many deep controversial issues that conflict with the justness of responsibility. However in this paper, I will be using a cosmopolitan outlook by opening up the discussion of the current global situation and what duty an individual in the developed states has to redistribute globally. I will also analyze the poverty in the third world, and assess whether distributing wealth is the most effective mechanism compared to other alternatives.
Frederick Douglass was a noted writer, abolitionist, orator, and former slave; in fact, his oratory ability was so good that there were those who were among the most ardent opponents of slavery who could not believe that he had been a slave. His best known work is Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, a book of eleven chapters and an appendix. The purpose of the book was to provide a well-written account of a slave’s life for northern readers who might not yet be convinced of the abolitionist cause. Thus, the book was both a memoir and a polemic against the institution of slavery.
In the early modern period, the political system put in Europe was “absolute power” (Lecturer Morris). According to the OED, “absolute power is a monarch invested in absolute”. In this period, it was believed that it was necessary that only one person designated by God could hold absolute power. Usually this prophecy would be passed down in the royal family, from father to son (Carrol 246). Occasionally, if viewed as worthy of the opportunity, a person, usually a warrior who has served well in war, could rise to the occasion, and can be named king (Lecturer Morris). “The sons do not succeed the fathers, before the people first have as it were anew established them by their new approbation: neither were they acknowledged in quality, as inheriting
Crooks expressed feelings of loneliness through out Of Mice and Men. Crooks? loneliness is caused because he is black, at the time the story took place there was racism. Since Crooks is black he wasn?t able to socialize with the white men. When Steinbeck describes all of Crooks? possessions, it shows that Crooks has been at the ranch a long time and that his possessions are all the he cares about. In Crooks? room, Lennie comes to talk to him. Crooks is cautious at first, this was from the years of racism that Crooks endured, he learned not to associate with white folk.
...ovides for equality in sharing whatever assets are left after all the discounting which although may be little is surely beneficial to those receiving and is surely better than nothing.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
...Although this theory is very rational and scholarly it again asks for a very ideal situation of fairness where the chances of both disputants coming to these terms seems unattainable. Also, it is quite obvious that what one sees as fair, another may not. All the same, the theory by itself provides great principles for negotiation that if followed honestly by both parties would most likely lead to a satisfactory agreement.
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.
Promoting fairness in the classroom not only gives the teacher respect but also gives the students a sense of safeness and trust within the classroom. Creating an environment that revolves around fairness, trust and respect will be beneficial to all of the children in the class. The terms respect and trust are pretty straightforward. There doesn’t need to be a debate on what those two mean, but the same cannot be said for fairness. When one usually hears the word “fair” it is often looked at as synonymous to the term “equal” but the two are not the same, especially in a classroom setting. The term fairness on the classroom level means that the individual students are given what he or she may need in order to be successful; fairness does not