i think so, it depends on how the parents will balance the situation, both for the normal and severely deformed kid.

i do believe that there will be enough for both the normal child and the deformed child. It's just a matter of proper balancing on the part of the parent as well as involving their normal child in the provision of care to the deformed child.

Thank you for your answers, tina, ara,jenny, angel and raiza.

We believe that is only fair for the children with deformities to be raise with other children. By simply following Rawl's theory of social justice, people are under the veil of ignorance, in which they disregard or set aside, personal biases, social classes as well as conditions whether physically or emotionally.


For our next questios (2 & 3)

Would the other children get what is due them alongside the inordinate requirements that would be required to raise or save the severely malformed child?

Or, if the other children did receive what is due them, would there be sufficient time, energy and other resources to attend to the particular (nay, special) needs of the deformed child?

Yes Thea, I do believe that it's only fair that they are raised with other children. As long as the parent could explain to their 'normal' children the situation.

it is precisely ethical and moral to say that with under the principle of "veil of ignorance" everyone should be given fair and just rights that is similar to others- which is the right to live.

however, the principle of veil of ignorance is just another face of the reality for us to further understand and apply this propositions of Rawl. As what is mentioned by tina, a lot of factors should also be taken into consideration until we finally say that what is just to the other child will be just and will not compromise the other children's rights.


(sorry...mali ng entry ang username)

raiza, i believe they have a right to live in this world. but do you think it would be fair to raise them with other children?

it is precisely ethical and moral to say that with under the principle of "veil of ignorance" everyone should be given fair and just rights that is similar to others- which is the right to live.

however, the principle of veil of ignorance is just another face of the reality for us to further understand and apply this propositions of Rawl. As what is mentioned by tina, a lot of factors should also be taken into consideration until we finally say that what is just to the other child will be just and will not compromise the other children's rights.

I do believe that they too have the right to live in this world. Because they are still HUMAN BEINGS.

According to Rawls, behind veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. In relation to question number 1, it would be fair to raise a severely deformed child with the other child in the family though in the “real world” there is a wide variety of differences with regards to their cognition, thought process, abilities and development that distinguish the deformed child from the other. Although the family could not actually eliminate all of their personal biases and prejudice, they should atleast take steps to minimize them. Each person has a right to live and to be treated fairly.

for the rest of the person's life. that is the rawls' concept of justice, people must be under the veil of ignorance.

further, the theory states, "Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like."

thus, severely deformed person can join the normal kids in the family just as long as concept of justice accdg to rawls is used, for they themselves and the people around them do not know their position, social status, intelligence and the like in society so there would be no point of comparison for this severely deformed individual.

>>With the issues on raising the severely deformed baby with other
children in the family, I think it will be just fair for the parents to
do so. This entails the notion of the "rights" of each person, whether
normal or with disabilities to live and be given fair and equal
treatment. Giving what is due to them. Rights involve claims by
individuals or classes against the larger society. By implication,
rights invoke the notion of special entitlements that outweigh other
considerations, such as fairness or justice.

I agree with what you said Tina. But i wonder, upto when will they be under that veil of ignorance? most especially the other children who belongs in the family? just a thought.

anymore answers, classmates?

rawls' theory produce of what we called "veil of ignorance". people under this veil does not see other reality so they do not care about other's status, wealth, social position so and so because, again they are under that veil. justice according to rawls, is like this. being under the veil of ignorance.

for question no.1, if rawls method will be used then it would be fair to raise a severely deformed baby with the other children in the family, considering that the family is under the veil of ignorance,.

i agree tina.

I think all of you are having a hard time answering the questions. So we will do it one by one. I would just like to make it clear that views and opinions are the main concepts of this discussion, because it is about our own moral and ethical standards in life.

Would it be “fair” to raise a severely deformed baby with the other children in the family?

Answers are very much appreciated.

rawls, in his theory, justice is seen as undermined if society's main economic, social and political insitutions require SACRIFICES from the worse-off groups purely to the BENEFIT OF THE BETTER-OFF GROUPS. In rawlsian justice, the focus is thus shifted from health outcomes to the mechanisms implicit in basic social institutions that produce social inequalities in health.