Dworkins Distinction Between Ethics and Morality Essay

Dworkins Distinction Between Ethics and Morality - Essay Example Certainly, morals are informed by both â€Å"majorities† and â€Å"minorities†4 and it, therefore, makes sense that standards are set, regulated and enforced by via executive functions. For Dworkin, it is within this paradigm that the political community exists. The political community is a pivotal point of individual and collective identity. Depending on whether or not the political community is successful or not, members of the community will either perceive that the political community enhances the quality of our lives or limits it.5 According to Dworkin, morals and religions differ and conflict among groups and thus it is impossible to construct a universal legal or communal code that embodies all moral and religious ideologies and values. Thus, political communities set limits and standards for all.6 In this regard, Dworkin’s conceptualization of the relationship between morality and ethics explains the relationship between morality and the law in a way that is consistent with Rawls’ idea of justice.7 For Rawls, justice is achieved by setting standards, but by avoiding prohibiting moral and religious beliefs that deviate from the established standards. A just society instead will tolerate the views of others.8 Similarly, Dworkin advocates for a political framework that takes a neutral stance in that it does not favor one set of religious or moral values over another.9 Rawls conceptualization of justice and the political community is more realistic than Dworkin’s theory. It is conceivable that a legal and/or political framework can set and enforce specific moral standards and at the same time recognize and tolerate other religious and moral standards that are different from the normative standard. This would accord with ideas of equality. Thus Rawls’ theory of political liberalism makes more sense than Dworkin’s theory of liberal community. Dworkin advocates for a neutral framework while admitting that it is impossible to formulate a universal moral code. Arguably, in order to be neutral, the political community’s framework must reflect the common values of all members of the community. The values and morals of some members of the political community will be left out since the liberal community must determine and set standards for all to follow. Therefore, Dworkin’s theory of liberal community is a bit contradictory. Nevertheless, Dworkin insists that law and the liberal community that informs the law is beneficial to members of the community because it formulates standards thus facilitating fairness and certainty. It also ensures that members of the community are treated equally and thus makes the community more sincere and enhances the moral rationale for the exercise of executive powers.10 The difficulty with this aspect of Dworkin’s reasoning, however, is that the executive may decide to treat all members of a community with equal oppression.11 In such a case, w ould the executive have a moral justification for the exercise of its powers? The answer according to Gough and Stables is found in Dworkin’s general assumption that the liberal community is structured around respect for rights and dignity of the members of the community.

The Methodology of Three International University Ranking Systems Essay

The Methodology of Three International University Ranking Systems - Essay Example The three major international ranking systems that are used for this purpose are The Times Higher Education World University Rankings, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Rankings of World Universities as well as The CHE ExcellenceRanking 2010 (Gallagher, 2011). The essay will start off with a definition of the university league tables and how they work, reasons for their popularity and the substantial growth in their use over the past years. Next, it will explore various areas in relation with the league tables such as critical analysis of the three ranking systems to gauge their strengths and weaknesses, debate on the evidentiary basis of league tables to explain the criteria upon which the universities are ranked and criticism as well as the limitations to the validity of university ranking systems. Lastly, it will single out the methodology that stands out. The need for and growth of ranking systems: The world is in the process of getting preoccupied with rankings more and more every d ay. Just like scarcity, having access to the ‘finest’ as well as prestige more or less mark the purchase of almost every commodity in our daily lives, so are the customers of the tertiary sector continuously looking out for pointers that improve their capability to know and access the best in the tertiary sector (Salmi & Saroyan, 2007). Criteria for measuring the rankings: In most of the university ranking tables, the criteria used to measure the rankings is: To be distinct about what the ranking will measure. To use a variety of indicators and multiple procedures rather than a single, weighted ranking. To associate comparable programs or institutions. At the institutional level, use rankings for planned preparation and quality enhancement purposes. At the government level, use rankings to kindle a philosophy of quality. Use rankings as one of the tools available to notify and update students, families and employers and encourage public debate (Salmi & Saroyan, 2007) An alysis of the ranking systems: Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) rankings were formulated in 1998 and were more formally known as ‘The Academic Rankings of the World Universities’ (ARWU). Universities that have field medallists; highly cited researchers as well as Nobel laureates are included in the ranking. According to this criterion, ARWU is not trying to compare all the universities throughout the world; instead it is targeting the world’s top research universities only. ARWU initially picks out around 1000 universities from throughout the world, of which only 500 are later on ranked in the league tables. For all ARWU indicators, data is usually collected from third parties that include the official site of the Nobel Prize as well as numerous Thomson Reuters websites in order to access citation and publications (Rauhvargers, 2011). Moving on to ‘The Times higher Education World University Rankings’, it is apparent that, published in 2004, it w as an ‘answer’ to the Shanghai ARWU rankings. The indicated drive of ‘The World University Rankings’ is â€Å"to recognise universities as the multi-faceted organisations that they are, to provide a global comparison of their success against the notional mission of remaining or becoming world-class† (Salmi & Saroyan, 2007). This ranking separates 300 in each of the five faculty areas as well as about 600 universities and uses sources such as incorporate surveys from individual academics and researchers, employer organisations, third-party data as well as university information (Salmi & Saroyan, 2007). Lastly, The CHE Centre for Higher Education Development that designed an ‘