In the final (second) paper—which will serve as the final exam in the course—I ask you to reflect a non-foundationalist perspective in addressing a case that involves a conflict of values. This could be a virtue perspective as illustrated by an Aristotelian approach, a Kantian perspective as illustrated by the fair-minded point of view as described in the third round of the Rawls Game, or a pragmatic perspective as illustrated by the contextualist approach of John Dewey. Aristotle adopts the perspective of the human community: his Golden Mean is a middle way between two extremes. Examples may be found in Aristotle’s list of virtues and vices under Six Questions < http://billsoderberg.com/six-questions-2/>
JohnRawls places himself in the Kantian tradition and proposes that liberty should be given priority once a certain minimum level of well-being in society is achieved. John Dewey advocates that the context or situation be taken into account: decisions are made in a particular context. Dewey’s is a type of situational (contextual) ethics.
The conflicting values may be expressed as a conflict between basic rights. The rights to life, health, liberty, and property are among the fundamental rights that could conflict in a particular situation. Strict communitarians assign these basic rights to the community; classic libertarians assign these rights to individuals and give priority to liberty rights (such as property rights); classic utilitarians assign these rights to individuals and give priority to welfare rights (life, and health as a means to life). Other values or rights may be involved. For examples of other basic rights you may wish to consult the list of rights in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights found in the Applied Ethics text on pages 78-81.
As we have seen, some major differences between the foundationalist and the non-foundationalist positions may be found. The first is that in situations where rights conflict foundationalists claim to know in advance which right or value will take priority. Social stability is given priority in strict communitarianism, individual liberty in classic libertarianism, and individual well-being or equality in classic utilitarianism. Non-foundationalists, by contrast, take into account the rights or values that conflict in the situation and decide after reflecting on a particular case or situation the right or value that should be assigned priority. For example, a non-foundationalist will attempt to balance the values of social stability, individual liberty, and individual well-being or equality; after reflecting on and discussing how best to preserve each of these values, the non-foundationalist may assign priority to one of the rights or values to help manage the conflict. In doing so, the non-foundationalist also addresses ways to preserve the values that are not given priority in the situation.
A second major difference between the foundationalist and the non-foundationalist approaches is this: while the strict communitarians choose virtues that sustain communities and moral liberals (libertarians and utilitarians) choose actions, the non-foundationalists choose worlds. The non-foundationalist approach has people choose among possible worlds. With the cards face down in the non-foundationalist Kantian approach, as we saw in the Rawls Game, people envision a social world that includes slavery and an alternative social world that does not include slavery. When a unanimous vote from the cards-down (fair-minded) perspective rules out a world that includes slavery, a right not to be enslaved is created. The choice of the right that rules out slavery provides a good reason to follow the rule.
The non-foundationalist approach tries to minimize the arbitrary treatment of people that can occur when foundationalist frameworks collapse into tyranny. Arbitrary treatment occurs, the non-foundationalists observe, when self-realization is thwarted or individual rights are violated. The libertarians (foundationalists) also claim that an action as right if it upholds rights, wrong if it violates rights. However, they favor assigning priority to liberty rights when liberty rights conflict with welfare rights (hence the name “libertarian”). Always assigning priority to liberty rights can lead to a compromise of well-being; hence, human suffering can more readily occur in a libertarian framework. Those made to suffer for the sake of preserving liberty (often, property) rights are subject to arbitrary and sometimes even tyrannical treatment.
The decision-making procedure that may be useful for both Option 1 and Option 2 of this second paper may be outlined in five steps:
1.       State the situation, including any values or rights that conflict in the situation.
2.       List alternative scenarios that could address the situation.
3.       Indicate with supporting reasons the right or value that should be given priority.
4.       State how best to preserve the other conflicting rights or values.
5.       Identify the scenario that preserves the conflicting rights or values to the greatest extent possible in the situation.
If you choose Option 2, indicate in steps 3, 4, 5, and 6, your reasons for the choices you make. In Step 5, for example, tell how you propose to preserve each of the conflicting values to the greatest extent possible in the situation. If you assign primary importance (priority) to the value of community stability, the values of individual liberty, equality, and well-being are assigned secondary importance. Indicate how you propose to preserve these secondary values to the greatest extent possible in the situation.