Self-study
Walter: Conclusion For the economically privileged in a society to tolerate an injustice perpetrated against one of society’s disadvantaged is not just morally wrong but also shortsighted: Support a system that inflicts an injustice on a disadvantaged person today can equally well inflict that same injustice on a well-to-do person tomorrow.
████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████████████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ █ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████
Walter's Argument
Walter says tolerating injustice against the disadvantaged is (1) morally wrong and (2) shortsighted. The shortsightedness piece has a specific support: a system that inflicts injustice on a disadvantaged person today can later inflict the same injustice on a wealthy person. So self-interest is supposed to line up with morality. The wealthy should oppose these injustices because they could be next.
Larissa's Response
Larissa accepts that allowing these injustices to persist is bad policy. That matches the "shortsighted" half of Walter's conclusion. What she rejects is the reasoning Walter uses to get there. She says the wealthy and well-educated can protect themselves from injustices that hit the less well-off, so Walter's equal-risk story doesn't hold up.
Then she swaps in her own reason: tolerating these injustices is bad policy because it fuels social unrest.
5.
Walter and Larissa are logically █████████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ██ ███████████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
whether the poor ███ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██████
Are the poor and the rich part of the same social fabric?
Walter: ✅Larissa: ✅
Walter's shared-system argument assumes the wealthy and the disadvantaged live under one system. Larissa's social-unrest argument also assumes one society where unrest among the poor reaches the wealthy. Both speakers accept this. Not a point of disagreement.
b
whether the most ██████████ ███████ ██ █ ███████ ███ ████ ███████████ █████ ████████ ██████
Are the most successful members of a society its least tolerant people?
Walter: ❓Larissa: ❓
Neither speaker says anything about how tolerant the successful are. Tolerance levels aren't in the dialogue at all.
c
whether the disadvantaged ███████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ █████████
Do the disadvantaged members of society suffer from injustice?
Walter: ✅Larissa: ✅
Walter's whole argument starts from "an injustice perpetrated against one of society's disadvantaged." Larissa explicitly refers to "injustices suffered by the less well-off." Both speakers accept this is happening, so it can't be the disagreement.
d
whether those who ████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ █ ███████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████ ██████████
Are those with the most advantages morally obligated to correct society's injustices?
Walter: ✅Larissa: ❓
Walter calls tolerating injustice morally wrong, which lines up with (D). But Larissa never frames the issue in moral terms. Her whole case is built on policy and social unrest, not obligation. Without Larissa's view on the moral question, (D) isn't a disagreement.
e
whether the economically ██████████ ███████ ██ █ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ███ ████████████ █████████████
Are the economically privileged members of a society less exposed to certain sorts of injustices than the economically disadvantaged?
Walter: ❌Larissa: ✅
Walter's "equally well" wording is the giveaway. He's claiming the same system can hit the wealthy just as it hits the poor, which means they aren't less exposed. Larissa says the opposite: the wealthy can protect themselves against the injustices the less well-off suffer, which is just another way of saying they're less exposed.