t jealousy of how I wish I was in their spot (without the children). I guess its kind of an understanding of John Rawl's theory of justice. His second theory justifies their wealth and states that inequality is okay for all in society benefit from it and the benefits are assessable to all. Most of the parents fall in this category themselves or their husbands do. I guess I understand because them bringing in their children pays my salary. With most of the parents occupations being doctors, dentists, lawyer's etc…. I guess it all comes down to the occupations benefiting society. And anyone can choose these positions if they so choose. So they met the two qualifications of Rawl's. Their wealth benefiting to all and open to all. So I just don't like his justifications because I'm just too jealous to accept them. Question 4 The masculine theory on ethics seem to be based on the obligation and duty. The Feminist theory of ethics are based on love and trust. And on a personal note either of these theories on their own don't make a dam bit of sense. And even together gather very little weight. The benefits of ethics that are centered on obligation are pretty obvious. Society seems to have this group of rules to keep society in order and then a certain sense of responsibility is promoted. If we to compare this to a family it would say that the man was to play the father figure and set the rules and discipline for breaking those rules and other things like that. Alone it doesn't hold any ground. Then theirs the feminist theory of love balances the scale. The theory, which is based on trust, is suppose to be taught by the mother. But according to Baier, it is not simply enough to teach obligation without understanding the purpose of it. It is typically the traditional mother role. These rules and discipline, teaching the moral values and nurturing can they be explained. Let's use a common quote of "so far so good" and this seems...
