As a young student, I was always drawn to the health sciences. It started when I was about six years old. I was hanging out with my older brother and his friend at the playground while my mom watched my younger brother’s T-ball game. We were playing an imaginary superhero game when my brother told me that eating a leaf from a plant that he found would give me extra cool powers. As a six-year-old, I did not hesitate to eat the leaf. Immediately after, my brother and his friend told me that it was a trick and I had been poisoned in real life. As a six-year-old, I believed him. I rushed back to the T-ball field to find my mother, babbling about how I needed the antidote and fast. Luckily for me, my mother had the antidote on her. She gave me a special pill and directed me to leave it in my mouth until it was gone without chewing or swallowing it. Fearing for my life, I followed her directions, bravely saving my own life. Fascinated by the pill that my mother had given me, I went back to the playground and suggested that we play pharmacist instead. It wasn’t until many years later that I realized my mom had only given me a Tic Tac. ` Over a decade later, when it was time to consider a college major, pharmacy was still on my mind. My grandfather had been a pharmacist and owned his own family drugstore in a small town in Minnesota. Neary pharmacy provided medications to the entire town of Floodwood- all 500 of them- and the surrounding small towns. By being the sole provider of pharmaceutical care in the area, my grandfather made a huge difference in his patient’s lives. He knew everyone who came into his pharmacy and made sure to give them the personal care they needed. His career inspired me to do the same. Not only did I want to be a pharmacist like him, but I wanted to practice in a pharmacy desert, which is an area without direct and easy access to a pharmacy. If it wasn’t for Neary Pharmacy, the people in and around Floodwood would not be able to easily get their prescriptions. I plan to find a similar area in my state and make sure that they do not face a lack of access to the care they need, whether that care is medications for their blood pressure or a spearmint Tic Tac.

Growing up, my siblings and I loved to play Nintendo games. From taking turns playing Animal Crossing on the Wii to all four of us racing eachother in Mario Kart, Nintendo always found its way into our days. My favorite game, however, is one that is not well known, especially now. Playing together in the same home was not enough for my family, leading us to fall in love with Dr. Mario Online Rx with our cousins that lived many states over. I have dear memories of playing my uncle in the game. He was undoubtedly the best at it- he could play at the highest level and beat any of us playing at half the difficulty. He would play a joke where he would wait for us to be close to winning before making a final play, allowing him to quickly secure his victory. Eventually, the online feature of the game was discontinued, meaning we could no longer duel eachother from halfway across the country. That did not stop us, however, from playing the game on one console whenever we all were together. If we were not simply visiting eachother, we would take the Wii to play in the evening on family vacations to make sure we were able to play Dr. Mario still. The game was not technically a “co-op” game- we weren’t working together, one player wins and one player loses- but it never quite felt that way. The game was never defined by the win or the loss, but by the bonding experience that it provided. To us, it was a co-op game. We would cheer eachother one, giving them advice of where to place the capsules. We would laugh and joke for hours on end as nobody was able to surpass my uncle and claim victory. As silly as the game seemed, it brought us together, and secured its title as Best Nintendo Game in our hearts. Another notable reason that I feel connected to the the game is the impact it has had on my life goals. We always assumed that Dr. Mario is a pharmacist, as he is throwing pills around and the name of the game includes Rx in it. Many years later, I am in college, studying to be a pharmacist. Although I will never be as impactful as Dr. Mario was to my family, I hope to also make a difference through my practice, and am grateful for anything that helps me do so.

In an excerpt from “Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation” Colin Farrelly introduces the contrast between ideal and non-ideal theories of justice and asserts that non-ideal theories are more effective. In this essay, I will examine the differences between ideal and non-ideal theories as described by Farrelly and discuss the real-world implications of the two ideologies by examining how frameworks function in policymaking depending on whether they use an ideal or non-ideal theory. Although they both function to secure justice, ideal and non-ideal theories have opposing starting points that have led to a debate on each of their worth as a framework. Philosophers such as Andrew Mason and G.A. Cohen believe that ideal theories of justice are optimal and that “fundamental principles of justice are logically independent of issues of feasibility and questions about human nature”. This means that ideal theories assume an ideal society in order to simplify the objective of achieving justice. As Mason says to support this theory, “what reason do we have for thinking that any adequate analysis of an ideal such as justice must be conducted in the light of an investigation of what is feasible?”. Mason believes that there is no reason to limit our attempts to reach justice to what is seen as probable. This is a viewpoint that Farrelly directly opposes, as if justice is the ultimate end goal why would one recommend an impossible method to achieve it. Masons flawed starting point is harmful, as we are now attempting to apply a theory that is not built to function with realistic standards. Take, for example, the social contract theory. This theory is a hypothetical scenario where within a society, there is a moral contract that all parties agree upon given rational and fair conditions on both ends. This usually entails that citizens give up reasonable individual rights in return for benefits or protections from a state actor. This theory is considered ideal as it assumes that both parties will act justly and uphold their side of the contract. We can see this theory attempted to be practiced in the real world. For example, in the United States, citizens pay taxes on income or purchases. The government is then expected to use the money they collect from these taxes to provide acceptable public services, such as school systems. Both expectations are reasonable, so under the social contract theory, everyone would oblige. The issue is that people may decide for themselves that they should not need to pay taxes on income and commit tax fraud, or a government may not withhold their end of the contract and fail to provide public facilities or services that taxes are expected to go towards such as acceptable public education. Both issues can be considered rather common in society, meaning our social contract is continuously broken and therefore ineffective. This only exacerbates the issue, as now individuals may decide that because the government is not withholding their promise, they should not need to follow the laws the said government imposes. This leads to protests, riots, or civil unrest. As Farrelly explains, “A theory of social justice that yields impotent or misguided practical prescriptions is a deficient theory of justice”. The social contract theory fits this narrative, as it is far too simplified and does not take into account any nonpractical possibilities to guide actors in a realistic way. This empirically proves that ideal theories do not function well in practice without adaptation. In contrast, we can look to non-ideal theories to see how starting with a realistic viewpoint differs our approach to achieving justice. Theorists such as John Dunn and Joseph Carens defend non-ideal theories, believing that “normative theorizing must be integrated with an appreciation of the empirical realities of one’s society”. They insist that we must not ignore and human circumstances when attempting to improve human life. A common subset of non-ideal theories that well illustrates this viewpoint are those dealing with restorative justice. In society, there are minority groups that are affected by systemic violence and power indifferences. This is referred to as structural violence, as the social structures that we have built are disproportionately harming particular populations. A theory of restorative justice choses to first acknowledge and solve this discrepancy. Farrelly prefers non-ideal theories as such because by taking unfavorable conditions into account, we are able to better guide collective action in a way that actually applies to civilizations. When it comes to policymaking, the importance of this is clear. Policymakers should strive to achieve justice. A common theory of justice that policymakers use is utilitarianism, the idea that we must do the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. This seems simple enough, however it is an ideal theory and therefore makes assumptions- one being that we all have equal moral worth. This assumption is in order to justify the idea that we should take actions that benefit a majority of people. The issue with this assumption is that groups that face structural violence are not treated as moral equals, leaving them out of a fair utilitarian calculus. A well-known philosophical explanation of this comes from Deborah Winter and Dana Leighton, who explain that when groups are different than the majority, we tend to exclude them from our moral circle, exposing them to structural violence as we focus on doing good for those who are inside of our moral circle. An extreme example of this in practice was the justification of slavery. Slaves were not considered people, and they lied outside of the common moral circle. Even though slavery clearly creates more harms than benefits, because slaves were not considered to hold equal moral worth, utilitarianism justified the system for the benefits that it gave to slave owners and the economy. So, instead of using an ideal theory like utilitarianism which assumes we all have equal moral worth, it is better to use non-ideal theories such as restorative justice first. In the United States, the end of slavery was the first of many steps using restorative justice. Unfortunately, well over one hundred years later, all citizens in the United States are still not viewed with equal moral worth. This means that we must still use non-ideal theories, such as restorative justice, in policymaking as a prerequisite to any ideal theory. Ideal theories of justice are fundamentally flawed as they purposely ignore situations should change how we approach issues in the real world. Non-ideal theories do not ignore these circumstances, but instead take them into account or focus on them. Therefore, it can be concluded that non-ideal theories are more effective in practice, therefore agreeing with Colin Farrelly’s initial statement. Paragraph Cited- Political philosophers have recently begun to take seriously methodological questions concerning what a theoretical examination of political ideals (such as freedom, equality and justice) is supposed to accomplish and how effective theorising in ideal theory is in securing those aims. Andrew Mason (2004) and G.A. Cohen (2003), for example, believe that the fundamental principles of justice are logically independent of issues of feasibility and questions about human nature. Their position contrasts sharply with political theorists like John Dunn (1990) and Joseph Carens (2000) who believe that normative theorising must be integrated with an appreciation of the empirical realities of one’s society. Rather than bracket questions of feasibility and human nature, empirically oriented political theorists believe that real, non-ideal considerations (like our historical circumstances, problems of institutional design, etc.) must be taken seriously when deriving normative theories of justice. The disagreement between those political philosophers who feel inclined to invoke highly abstract hypotheticals when deriving the principles of justice, and those political theorists who take seriously real, non-ideal considerations, is a disagreement over how fact-sensitive a theory of distributive justice ought to be. Mason raises a challenge for the more empirically grounded political theorists when he asks: “what reason do we have for thinking that any adequate analysis of an ideal such as justice must be conducted in the light of an investigation of what is feasible?” (Mason, 2004, 255). In this paper I hope to provide a compelling response to Mason’s question. I believe there is some conceptual incoherence involved in saying “This is what justice involves, but there is no way it could be implemented” (Mason, 2004, 255). This incoherence stems from the fact that a theory of social justice, and the principles of justice it endorses, must function as an adequate guide for our collective action. A theory of social justice that yields impotent or misguided practical prescriptions is a deficient theory of justice. If the collective aspiration to implement the conclusions of a theory would not result in any noticeable increase in the justness of one’s society, then it fails as a normative theory. Liberal egalitarian theories of justice are theories that typically function at the level of ideal theory. The distinction between ideal and non-ideal theory is not given rigorous classification in the existing literature. As Mason (2004, 265) notes, this distinction is employed by John Rawls in The Law of Peoples. An account of justice in ideal theory must recognise “some moderately strong feasibility constraints which require it to be realistic in the best of foreseeable conditions” (Mason, 2004, 265). Rawls describes ideal theory as being realistically utopian. Political philosophy is realistically utopian “when it extends what are ordinarily thought of as limits of practical political possibility” (Rawls, 1999, 6). This contrasts with non-ideal theory, which is concerned with problems of non-compliance or unfavourable (historical, social or economic) conditions.

Throughout my high school experience, I greatly developed both personally and intellectually thanks to the free speech exercised at debate practice and tournaments. I joined the team, made up of both high schools in the city, as a quiet and shy eighth grader. Joining the team at a relatively young age helped me develop intellectual and creative acuity. I was relentlessly exposed to important real-world issues and had to defend both sides of each resolution and solve the problems within them despite the bias I had towards a certain side. Engaging in discourse at debate made me a better listener, even to viewpoints that I never did or no longer hold. In addition, being a part of the diverse community within debate was also eye-opening, as prior to that my views on the world were limited to my own experiences. Hearing other students present arguments based on experiences different than mine made me aware of issues involving race, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality that I was naive to before. Although they are not my stories, they made me more empathetic to others and helped form my current moral beliefs. My beliefs were not necessarily immoral before, however, I was not educated and wasn’t truly understanding of how I could best express and act on such beliefs in a community. If I could relive my experience, I would not change a thing as every round I debated taught me something about the current social, economic, or political state of our world. Without free speech, many of the topics we debated and arguments that kids made would not happen. Free speech is an important principle in debate, and I am very grateful as kids speaking their minds truthfully is what allowed me and so many other students to grow as a person. Although I am no longer in high school, activities that allow students to use free speech can be just as impactful on college campuses. College campuses should allow clubs that push boundaries, including political clubs, as discourse is how we learn. Free speech has contributed so much to our society. It's been reaffirmed in multiple supreme court cases, so there is no reason as to why any campus should attempt to silence students now. Our generation is changing the world already with young influential figures such as Greta Thunberg and Marley Dias, and there's no telling what seemingly average student will be the next to speak out. I am a strong advocate for free speech in schools, and I will continue to be throughout my college experience.