I intend to write an assignment (approx. 20 pages) about justice and economic doctrines (among other things, distribution of wealth) where I will attempt to explain/elucidate how different economical doctrines(capitalism, social democracy and socialism) attempt to carry out a fair and just society. All of this would, of course, also requiree to explicit how these economical doctrines perceive justice in the first place. And by this, I may also very well define justice on a ore philosophical context, as I am dealing with what pertains to moral philosophy. Overall, I would like to give a thorough, but concise account of the subject. Cutting to the chase, do you have any suggestions on possible sources of book that I make use of? By the way, I have already made plenty of considerations on possible sources, though I thought 'better safe than sorry.' Thank you in advance!

Dear Ambitious Student - What an assignment! What you propose to write could indeed be a book instead of a research paper, so my hat is off to you and your ambitions. As a piece of advice, you might want to check with your professor (before the assignment is due) to see if there is a way to meet the requirements of the assignment, but evaluate the issues in a more specific way. This might help you to narrow down your research. In am not sure, for example, you need to do a whole review of moral theory in order to write a paper about economic justice. As far as resources, I recommend beginning with the online (and free!) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Perhaps begin by searching articles in justice or economics. Besides the numerous articles, be sure to make use of the bibliographies at the end of them. You will get a sense of who the major names are, both historically and today. Good luck!

Eyery year I participate in a not-for-profit-programe that sends shoe boxes with Christmas presents to children from very poor countries in the world. A good friend of mine said this would not be worth doing it, as it is just changing nothing about the poverty in the world. When is it good to put a drop in the ocean?

My Charitable Friend, I disagree that it is not 'worth' doing, but it all depends on how you measure worth. Your good friend is correct in saying that shoebox full of trinkets and everyday supplies sent to a child or two won't solve world poverty. Ours is a world in which an estimated five thousand children under age ten die every day from preventable causes. A few shoeboxes won't change that, so it is the effort it takes you to assemble the shoebox is a wasted one because your individual actions will not change the basic dynamics of world poverty. Yet I disagree. Worth is not just measured by predicted efficacy. 'Worth it' is also about values. By preparing the shoeboxes you take an ethical stand that these children matter, that they are not forgotten, that they deserve goodies at holiday time like other children do. Values matter a good deal, so your shoebox campaign is important - but not just for your own sense of virtue. The shoeboxes, their contents and what they represent,...

The other day I overheard a discussion over immigration, one man obviously to the right of the political spectrum said "we should not let foreigners in the country", the second, obviously on the left said that "we owe them, that as britain managed to control over a quarter of the world at one time and we subjicated and abused the people for financial gains and power it's about time that we made up for acting like bullies". The first replied "we owe them nothing, that we never treated them like this it was people who have now all died". Leaving out the political factors of immigration the question is, can a country morally owe someone? If it can, does it only stand as long as the generation responsible are alive or can the next generation (that disagrees with imperial ideas) be held responsible for the actions of a previous, and what if the subjugated people are also dead, are their descendants owed? Where does responsibility end?

The immigration debate you mention reminds me of the reparations for slavery debate that happens on my side 'of the pond.' These are wonderfully interesting issue, but you are right: let's put aside the particulars of those debates to talk about justice, then pizza, and then I’ll swing back around to responsibility. It is true that people alive today cannot be to blame for the evils of the British Empire or American slavery. This is why it seems strange to some that 'we' should pay the price for injustices committed long ago. However, history isn't a matter for the history books. The lingering effects of past historical injustices stay with us long after the occupiers have left or the shackles have been removed. One of these lingering effects is that people alive today may well continue to benefit from injustices committed hundreds of years ago - injustices which they deplore, but nevertheless continue to benefit them. For example, British citizens now could be said to enjoy a high standard of living...

I read the other day that 48% of people over the age of 85 suffer from senile dementia, and that this number increases steeply as people age. Sufferers have difficulty remembering events and people. Even in its early stages, it impacts on decision making and one's ability to form short and long term plans. My question is, one of the reasons for having a voting age is because we believe that children and young people are cognitively unable to understand the full implications of voting. While this isn't true for all children, it is for the majority of kids, justifying an arbitrary, blanket voting age. If there is a point at which a majority of elderly people are cognitively unable to understand the implications of their vote, does this mean we should create an upper voting age limit? Thanks :)

I suspect you are right on many fronts. However, we (in the United States ) have a ignoble history of blocking adults from voting, e.g., denying suffrage to women and non-whites. I think ought to make us skeptical of movements to disenfranchise people. Another way to go, of course, is to enfranchise children - as when the United States lowered the voting age to eighteen from twenty one. Maybe we ought to move the voting age to fifteen or twelve? Recently someone told me one quick test for dementia is how quickly and accurately you can count back from 100 in units of 7. I flunked. I am thirty four. But if we are press forward with the imposition of minimum cognitive standards then we would need some fair system for discerning which elderly citizens have enough capacity to vote from those that do not; the blanket approach we take with minors would be hard to defend when imposed on seniors because it is much more difficult...