The Fair Equality Of Opportunity - 1472 Words

1.) Daniels uses the â€Å"fair equality of opportunity† for his argument on his views on the strong right to healthcare. He states that you can t be considered a normal functioning human if you are diseased or have disabilities that restrict your range of opportunities. Because everyone should be able to obtain the same equal opportunities, if adequate healthcare is what they need to get back to a normal functioning state then that is what they should be able to receive. Buchanan thinks that the notion of a universal right of decent minimum healthcare cannot justify a mandatory decent minimum policy because it fails to demonstration distributive justice along with utilitarianism. His four main arguments that account for a right to a decent†¦show more content†¦His augment for the enforcement of beneficence states that by forcing an individual to contribute to the goal at hand will overcome the temptation to withhold their contribution and to also assure the individual th at everyone is going to contribute and he won’t be the only one donating to the cause. Both arguments contain the assumption that there is a standard when it comes to the moral obligation between society and individuals in need. 2.) In Rachel s Smith-Jones experiment he present a situation where two people have the desire to kill their nephew in order to hopefully receive a large sum of money. In Smiths situation he physically drowns the child while he s in a bath and in Jones’ situation the child slips, hits his head, and drowns himself in the bath water by accident. Jones was prepared to drown the child himself but there was no need because it already happened by accident without his doing, but Jones watches the whole thing and doesn t do anything to prevent it. Rachel s point in this situation is that neither situation, killing as apposed to letting die, aren t seen as having any moral difference. Both people acted upon the same motive and both situations had the same outcome. This case helps Rachel to make his point that, for a physician’s case, there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia.