Not too many questions either, but there's a bit of a twist at the end of passage B,

which we'll get to. We're learning about law, philosophy, morality, for time maybe like eight

and a half minutes. So passage A says, there are two principles that are fundamental to theory

justice regarding properties. We're talking property law. The principle of justice and

acquisition. How do you get property? Well, it specifies the conditions under which someone can

legitimately come to own something that was previously not owned by anyone. So this is all

modifier. When I come to own something, what? Anything? Nope, not anything. We're talking about

specifically the subset of things which was previously not owned by anyone. But if you think

about that, right, that's not the entire set of things, right? I mean, you know, obviously, right?

There's a set of things and then here's a subset of things that previously no one laid claim to,

right? What about, I don't know, like people? Anyway, I think you get the idea. There are

things that previously are owned by other people that you illegally take. So the principle of

justice and transfer. So acquisition versus transfer, right? Very different ideas. So here's

the second principle. Principle of justice and transfer specifies conditions under which transfer

property from one person to another is justified. So those are the two principles, acquisition and

also transfer. So given such principles, if the world were wholly just, which we know it's not,

right? So if the world were wholly just, then this would be all we need to say, right? So a

person who acquires property in accordance with principle of justice in acquisition, that person

is entitled to that property, right? So here's one way to get to be entitled to property is to

acquire it in accordance to the principle of justice in acquisition. So two, a person who

acquires property in accordance with the principle of justice and transfer, right? And transfer

in transfer from someone who meets one, from someone who is entitled to the property, entitled,

right? In other words, from someone who's already in one, then you're also entitled. So then if you,

let's just, I'm going to colloquially say legitimately transfer property to someone else,

then that someone else, right? You can just keep repeating two can transfer it again,

because that someone else is set to be entitled, right? Then you are also someone who acquire

property in accordance with transfer. So, right, you can just keep like sort of recursively

operating, operate rule number two and rule number three, no one is entitled to any property except

by application one and two. So these are, it sets the bounds of how you can, where the entitlement

bound is, right? Like, Oh, one way to be entitled, right? One way to be entitled is if, if one,

then you are entitled, right? If two, then you are also entitled. And three, rule three just says

it's your, your, your only entitled, right? By these two things. Anyway, just not, not that like

you actually need to know this conditional logic, but because you do know conditional logic,

I thought maybe I would use that as a framework. So, so, okay, so great. Those are the three rules,

right? So however, ah, okay. However, right? I mean, recall this from logical reasoning,

all the authors are just laying out context, right? The two principles fundamental to theory

of justice regarding property. But, but look, this not, not all actual acquisitions are generated

in accordance with principle of justice and acquisition and justice and transfer, right?

There are plenty of real life situations, which we already foreshadowed here, if the world were

wholly just, but we know the world is not, right? Some people steal, there you go, steal from others

or defraud them. Something, right? Remember earlier, we pointed out that was not previously

owned by anyone, but what if it was previously owned by someone, you stole it from them or

defrauded them out of it. Then the existence of past injustice raises the issue of rectification

of injustice, rectification. You need to make it right, right? If past injustice has shaped present

ownership in various ways, this is the redundant question, what, if anything, ought to be done to

rectify that injustice? I mean, I think the author is going to tell us what ought to be done, right?

So a principle of rectification. So third principle, principle number three called rectification would

use historical information about previous situations, injustice done in them, right?

Look in the past, what wrongs have been committed, what injustice have been committed in the past,

and then find out about the actual course events that flowed from those injustices. So once those

injustices happened, historical injustices, once they happened, what were the actual consequences,

right? To produce a description of property ownership that should have resulted, that should

have resulted. And then what? And then you take actual ownership and bring that into conformity

with this description of what should have happened. So likely, I mean, I'd imagine in most

cases, we probably just return the property, right? Because if you got it by stealing or defrauding,

right, then it's rectified, right? So this is the third principle that you need, right? So it's kind

of like these two principles lay out like a nice little, I don't know, like safe zone that just

kind of recursively operates. But then there are all these little cases that are outside, you just

kind of want to bring them in. That's what three does. Three forces them into the, into this like

safe zone. But anyway, so all this is just very general, very abstract stuff, right? In passage A

about justice in a property, acquisition property, transfer, rectification of past injustices. So,

you know, in A-B passages, you have to ask yourself what the relationship is between the two

passages, right? So before we get to B, just, you know, make sure, just one last time, make sure you

get a good sense of what A is talking about. First, we lay out two principles of justice property. But

here the author is saying, right, there's an argument being made. These two aren't enough.

However, right, now that I've told you all this stuff, now listen up, right? Here's what I want

to say. See, I thought the author doesn't do a great job of just cleanly stating what the argument

is, right? I mean, the rhetorical technique here is to use a, or rhetorical question, I suppose. I

didn't mean to use that word twice in different meanings. But I think you get it, though. Like,

the author is not actually asking us, oh, should we do anything? Of course, we should do anything.

The author is just, you know, posing as a question, but of course, we should do something,

right? What should be done? We should have this principle of rectification. That's what the author

is trying to argue for, right? So, okay, now let's move on to B. Keeping in mind that we have to ask

Just stop right there and just, like, okay, come on, think about what we just read. Yeah, okay,

okay. So, you know, we're the United States. You know what, you know what, I mean, you have a good

idea of where this is going, right? Which requires that all transfer of lands from Native Americans

to others be approved by the federal government. So, this is passed in 1790, right? If a Native

American tribe wants to transfer land to, I don't know, like John Smith, then that transfer's got

to be approved by the federal government. Why? The law has not changed in any relevant respect.

It remains in effect today. So, even up to today, right, hundreds of years later, it's still

working. The purpose is clear. It was meant to guarantee security to Native Americans against

fraudulent acquisition by others of Native Americans' land holdings. That's why this law

was enacted, right, to protect Native American land holdings. Several suits have been initiated

by Native American tribes for recovery of lands held by them when Non-Intercourse Act took effect,

so way back when this happened. So, all right, so this passage reads just two paragraphs. So,

at the end of this first paragraph, what do you think the relationship already is between A and B?

Well, see, A gives you a principle of transfer, a principle of justice in transfer, right, specifies

the conditions under which transfer property from one person to another is justified. See, isn't

the Non-Intercourse Act a specific example of that? When is transfer justified from a Native

American tribe to John Smith? Well, when the federal government approves. So, already you

can see the relationship. Okay, so let's keep going. One natural, one might almost say obvious

One natural, one might almost say obvious way of reasoning about the claims is this. So,

see, this is where the author, this language, right, this bit of language, the author didn't

need to say this, right? I mean, and try to see if you can tell the difference between

scratching this bit out and including this bit in, right? If you scratch it out, one way of reasoning

about Native American claims is this, and then you just read the reasoning. See, there it reveals

nothing about what the author thinks about this, right? The author might just be coldly reporting

to you this argument. Or you can modify this, say, the only correct way of reasoning about this is,

right? Then it's like the author is strongly in favor and think that this is the only way to

reason, right? But here the author says, look, one natural, one might almost say obvious way of

reasoning, right? See, this is a little, and I stress this point because later there's a question

that talks about this, or not specifically, it would be too easy if they specifically mention,

oh, look here, right? So think about it, we'll come back to this in the question. So it's this,

Native Americans were the first human occupants of the land before the European invasion of North

America, the land belonged to them, so this is the argument, all of this is the argument, right?

Right? Before the, let's see, in the course of the invasion, in the aftermath, land was

illicitly taken, the current owners, Americans, Americans, lack a well-founded right to the land,

which now lies illicitly in their hands. Ideally, the land should be restored to its rightful owners,

right, Native Americans. This sentence is when the author, this is the bit where it gets a little

confusing, right? I think it gets confusing for two reasons, because of what it says and also

because maybe you're prejudiced, right? I mean, you're thinking about this like, really, America returned

all of the land, or probably like a vast swath of land to Native Americans, you're probably prejudiced

against it, thinking like, that's not practical, right? That's not practical, that's exactly what

the sentence says, this may be impractical, compromises might have to be made. But that's

not the author's, that's not the argument here. This is, this bit is not the argument. This bit

is the argument attempting to defend itself against potential attacks, parrying, right? See, but

despite the fact that this may be impractical, in spite of the fact that compromises might have to

be made, here's what I have to say. The original wrong, right, in other words, conclusion, the

original wrong can most easily be righted by returning the land to Native Americans or by

returning it wherever that is feasible, right? So that's the, that's the, what the author claims is

one natural way of reasoning about Native American claims to land. This is it, this is the argument.

Now, do you think anything in passage A is related to that last paragraph, right, the argument laid

out in, over here? Well, what about this principle of rectification? Use historical information,

find out past injustices, produce a description of property ownership that should have resulted,

actual ownership, bring it back into alignment with what prescriptively, what morally ought to

be the case, right, what ought to be the case. Isn't that what this is?

First question, 22. This one is pretty time-consuming.

We're supposed to describe the main purpose for both A and the main purpose for B.

So, this AND is what you got to get two check marks, right?

If it's just one X, then the whole thing is an X.

So, what I did was I just looked at A and sort of just went past through A first,

ignoring B, right, in an attempt to make two check marks.

I thought, yeah, okay, let's be charitable.

The moral problem is, however, you know, we can't deal with all these situations,

so here's the solution.

Propose a rectification principle of justice.

So, check.

Yeah, I mean, that's like really abstract.

Yeah, sure.

That's a sketch, a general outline of moral theory of justice and property.

Nope, two is not.

I mean, it's just very incomplete, highly incomplete, right?

If your main purpose, not that this is false.

Yeah, I got the two principles here, I guess, right?

But like, that's not the main purpose.

Look at this, however, you completely neglected this bit, which is the important bit, right,

from the first, from passage A.

So C's automatically gone.

We don't even need to look at B, this bit over here.

Yeah, I guess you can say that this is to argue for, you know, we need, we also need

a new principle of rectification.

Great.

Criticize proposed solution to moral problem.

So this is where, like, this is wrong, but I can see how this is very attractive, right?

I mean, you could be like, oh, look, but down here, like, oh, the solution is to just return

the land to the Native Americans, and I'm going to criticize here.

But that's not right.

This argument is not criticizing this, right?

That's why I stress that this bit is just parrying.

The argument is anticipating attacks and trying to defend itself.

This bit, this bit, and this bit, that's the real conclusion.

The land should be returned to its rightful owner.

I know opponents are going to attack me, so I'm going to go ahead and say this, right?

Yeah, I know it's impractical, compromise, and might have to make, but the wrong can

most easily be righted by returning the land to the, right?

To see that's the, there's no critique of, you know, if you want to call this the application

of the principle of rectification, there is no critique.

Passage B is not criticizing it.

The particular moral analysis down here of the real case in the United States, right,

with this principle.

So, okay, so B's right.

Let's see, D says, the question, the assumptions of moral theory, I mean, that's just not,

Sort of similar to answer choice A.