The last article I forgot to add was Rachel’s on Kant which only needs a response

You will read each article it’s short and write a paragraph based on it. It’ s a reading response. This need not be a thorough summary, but instead should include thoughts and/or questions you had in relation to the test. After writing the paragraph after each article will have comment that will need a reply. Nozick -(read the ar ticle in attached files) Response - Comment - “After reading Robert Nozick's "Distributive Justice", I feel that this topic is quite new to me and also somewhat confusing. But if I'm not mistaken, for Nozick's ideas: any distribution of "shares," no mat ter how unequal, is only if it arises from a fair distribution through lawful means. : 1) The lawful means of appropriating something is not known under circumstances where the acquisition would not be to the detriment of others. 2) Voluntary transfer of o wnership of shares to others 3) Correction of past injustices in the acquisition or transfer of shares. In general, according to Nozick, anyone who obtains what he has through these means is morally entitled as long as they did not force others to against their will. Therefore, the rights theory of distributive justice "the distribution of holdings in a society is just if everyone in that society is entitled to what he has".” Reply to comment above - Rawls -(read the article in attached files) Respons e - Comment -“Rawls’ two principles of justice propose fair systemic means of structuring a society, which involves affording everyone their basic liberties and addressing social and economic inequalities. It is crucial that these proposed principles are followed in “a serial order” to preserve the sanctity of equality and fairness. Here, the only time when social and economic inequalities are permissible is if everyone would be better off with these inequalities than the counterpart. Now, I believe th at these premises are well -positioned and sound. For example, if we imagine a society without hierarchies, as hierarchical positioning entails inequalities, then we can assume that everyone’s equal. However, this kind of equality is not beneficial to socie ty, as this premise assumes that everyone’s efforts, skills, intellect, and other personal assets are the same. Therefore, it is way better if a system allows inequalities that would render more considerable value for society as a whole. Rawls’ second prin ciple of justice allows this. Here, assume that person A obtains the position of CEO. Therefore, and thereafter, he is compensated with more money and with more power. If he converts these social and economic inequalities that initially favored him in a wa y that favors everyone else, then according to the principle, this is deemed as fair. Hence, if person A, in his tenure, generates value for the betterment of the corporation with increased social and economic gains, compared to when he was in a lower tier of hierarchical structure, this preserves the concept of fairness. Supported by these examples, I believe that Rawls has strong premises and his principles are almost free from flaws. “ Reply to comment above - Virtue ethics (read the article in atta ched files) Response - Comment -“There are many different character traits for virtues. In the reading, some of the example that is used are honesty, loyalty, generosity, courage, fairness, friendliness, moderation, reasonableness, etc. Honestly to me is very important, especially with family and friends. Especially when you get older and start dating. Meeting someone new maybe be scary in this century but you’ll never know who you’ll meet. If you're serious about dating I feel like the talking stage, should be where you are honest about yourself. Being honest can give the other person trust in you. In the article, it says, “The honest person is someone who, first of all, does not lie.” I feel like in some ways it’s true but different people expect more than honesty.” Reply to comment above - Whistleblowing (read the article in attached files) Response - Comment -Whistle -blowing was never unethical or wrong thing to do, and instead it was always morally right to inform on things you think is illegal, unsafe, and unjust. But, I think what is not right is when you keep working on the very same company after y ou just report on them with the exception of course, that it is very big company or you just informing on your colleague. When you are informing on the entire company what I think will be right if you will inform after leaving the company, and that what I think will be ethical. If not for whistle -blowers many companies would still practice illegal, unsafe and fraudulent actions. The only reason an employee cannot report on his employer is when loyalty is specified in the contract other than that there is no obligations or laws from any sides that will prevent an employee to report on his employer. I do think that whistleblowers help to reshape company policies and government laws and there are definitely more benefits than harm with whistleblowing. The lat est whistle -blowing action is a former Facebook employee reporting on her employer stating that Facebook algorithm purposely harming the public especially teenagers with misinformation and among other things. If she is right, the company will change its po licies dramatically which will change how its algorithm will work in the near future. Reply to comment above - O’nelil on kant (read the article in attached files) Response Comment -There are similarities in Formula of the End in Itself by Kant and social contracts where we should "do to others as you would like others to do to you." According to Kant, humans are considered as rational beings representing morality with the ability to freely choose, plan, and control their own lives, so our own ma xims should be respected. Importantly, everyone needs to know in advance the plan they are going to participate in and make their own decisions instead of using each other to achieve what they want. Therefore, people should not be treated like coercing, de ceiving and manipulating each other because then they are treating us as a means to their own ends and that is unethical and disrespectful. Humans should morally act in good faith instead of taking every action out of obligation (acting for will, not for c onsequences) Reply to comment above -