How does Shelby respond to this objection?

Tommie Shelby’s “Race and Social Justice: Rawlsian Considerations”

Paragraph One: How does Tommie Shelby argue that Rawl’s original position, in which the parties are behind a veil of ignorance, “rules out a selection of a range of principles that would entail, encourage, or exacerbate racial injustice”? (see Section I in the reading)

Paragraph Two: In Section II, “Race, Personhood, and Equal Citizenship,” Shelby considers Charles Mills’ objection that any liberal contractarian approach (like Rawls’ approach) extends equal moral status to whites only. How does Shelby respond to this objection? In your explanation, specifically focus on (a) Rawls’ claims in A Theory of Justice and then (b) his claims in Political Liberalism.

Opinion Paragraph: Consider the second Justice as Fairness principle Rawls derives from the original position:

Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

Do you think Shelby is correct in arguing against Shiffrin’s position regarding the need for an antidiscrimination provision in the two principles and that a “fair equality of opportunity for all citizens regardless of race would remove many of the socioeconomic burdens that racial minorities presently shoulder because of the history of racial injustice”?  (see Sections IV and V)? If not, why not?

Your writing should be submitted as an attachment in a file type supported by Blackboard, such as .docx, .doc, .pdf. Do not use .pages or Google Docs.

These writings should be no fewer than 400 words, nor more than 500 words. The assignments will be submitted through Blackboard, and will be graded out of 30 points.


Interview with Tommie Shelby


Difficult Dialogues: Tommie Shelby, Ph.D


(49) Difficult Dialogues: Tommie Shelby, Ph.D – YouTube