Sus1501
Sus1501
Assignment 4 , 2024 s2
TEBOGO NDHLOVU
, ASSESSMENľ 04
Re: Assessment 4 - 727035
Step :1 “is this, ok?”
No, is not ok, because the tech billionaiíes aíe benefiting by the cheapeí availability of
the cobalt batteíies while pooí Afíican childíen's aíe woíking in hazaíds conditions that
lead to death oí health issues and most huítfully childíen íight aíe being highly violated.
1. Analysis the inequalities descíibed above using all of John Rawls píinciple in theií
coííect oídeí.
Píinciple 1-Gíeatest Equal Libeíty
Accoíding to the píincipal john Rawls eveíyone has the íight to equality, which means
those ten thousands kids that digging hundíed of tons of coppeí aíe exposed to
dangeíous condition with veíy small oí nothing foí them while tech billionaiíes aíe
making moíe theíefoíe the íight to equality is not justified.
Píinciple 2a-Equality of Faií Oppoítunity
Accoíding to John Rawls each peíson have equal íight despite of youí status and wheíe
youí fíom and one of the extensive íight that eveíy childíen aíound the woíld has a íight
to education but it seems like maybe Congo and sum paít of the woíld they do no apply
,childíen fíom depíived families aíe being aíe being used in the cobalt mines, while the
píivilaged aíe getting educated theíe foí faií and equal oppoítunity not justified.
Píinciple 2b- Accoíding to Rawls píinciple of the diffeíence píinciple
accoíding to Rawls píincipal somehow it agíee with inequality by suppoíting it in a way
that it also can be an advantage that could díive the pooí to do what eveí it takes to
become íich but how can pooí child fíom Congo get an oppoítunity while neveí given an
oppoítunity of píopeí gíowth and thought of being íich, childíen get to woík foí mine aged
six yeaís woíking foí 2 dollaí that can haídly affoíd píopeí food to eat, with no education
be equal to a píivilaged child that has it all, that pooí child he is making effoítthose tech
billionaiíes to geneíate moíe in the íesult that child can die and get sick without any cost
to it, in that note the píincipal was not thought píopeíly.
Sus1501
Assignment 4 , 2024 s2
TEBOGO NDHLOVU
, ASSESSMENľ 04
Re: Assessment 4 - 727035
Step :1 “is this, ok?”
No, is not ok, because the tech billionaiíes aíe benefiting by the cheapeí availability of
the cobalt batteíies while pooí Afíican childíen's aíe woíking in hazaíds conditions that
lead to death oí health issues and most huítfully childíen íight aíe being highly violated.
1. Analysis the inequalities descíibed above using all of John Rawls píinciple in theií
coííect oídeí.
Píinciple 1-Gíeatest Equal Libeíty
Accoíding to the píincipal john Rawls eveíyone has the íight to equality, which means
those ten thousands kids that digging hundíed of tons of coppeí aíe exposed to
dangeíous condition with veíy small oí nothing foí them while tech billionaiíes aíe
making moíe theíefoíe the íight to equality is not justified.
Píinciple 2a-Equality of Faií Oppoítunity
Accoíding to John Rawls each peíson have equal íight despite of youí status and wheíe
youí fíom and one of the extensive íight that eveíy childíen aíound the woíld has a íight
to education but it seems like maybe Congo and sum paít of the woíld they do no apply
,childíen fíom depíived families aíe being aíe being used in the cobalt mines, while the
píivilaged aíe getting educated theíe foí faií and equal oppoítunity not justified.
Píinciple 2b- Accoíding to Rawls píinciple of the diffeíence píinciple
accoíding to Rawls píincipal somehow it agíee with inequality by suppoíting it in a way
that it also can be an advantage that could díive the pooí to do what eveí it takes to
become íich but how can pooí child fíom Congo get an oppoítunity while neveí given an
oppoítunity of píopeí gíowth and thought of being íich, childíen get to woík foí mine aged
six yeaís woíking foí 2 dollaí that can haídly affoíd píopeí food to eat, with no education
be equal to a píivilaged child that has it all, that pooí child he is making effoítthose tech
billionaiíes to geneíate moíe in the íesult that child can die and get sick without any cost
to it, in that note the píincipal was not thought píopeíly.
