I have a paper to write, but I don't really know how to start my argument and then hit all the needed points. The paper we were given to reference was very confusing to me so I'm a little lost. This is an argumentative paper so I'm supposed to pick a side, but the instructions also want me to justify the other side. Thank you.

Here's the prompt: Gheaus and Herzog argue that certain goods of work are matters of justice. Describe two of these goods in detail, with examples, and then summarize their argument that these goods are necessary for a decent life. Should people expect to be provided with these goods at work?

This is what I have for the "should people expect..." part of the argument:

The authors argue that people should expect to access the goods of work, such as excellence and community, because these contribute significantly to a fulfilling life. However, this argument presupposes that the bads of workconditions that harm health, autonomy, and dignityare either mitigated or eliminated. Without addressing the bads, the expectation of accessing the goods becomes nullified, as these detrimental conditions can undermine the ability to achieve a decent life altogether.

Connecting to Excellence and Community For instance, achieving excellence requires time, focus, and psychological stability. If a workplace is plagued by micromanagement, excessive workloads, or unsafe conditions, employees may lack the mental and physical capacity to pursue excellence. Similarly, community thrives only in environments free from toxic hierarchies, oppressive leadership, or extreme competition. If these bads dominate the workplace, the potential for cultivating meaningful relationships is eroded.

The Authors' Oversight While the authors provide a compelling framework for understanding why these goods are essential, they fail to fully integrate how the presence of work's badssuch as poor mental health outcomes, lack of discretionary time, and exploitative practicesprevents individuals from realizing these goods. Justice in work, therefore, cannot be achieved by merely promoting access to goods without first addressing these foundational harms.

Why Eliminating Bads Precedes Accessing Goods The bads of work not only obstruct the realization of goods but also degrade the very conditions necessary for a decent life. For example:

• Health risks: Physical and mental health are prerequisites for pursuing excellence or participating in community. If jobs jeopardize these, any argument for goods becomes irrelevant.
• Lack of autonomy: Oppressive hierarchies and strict controls prevent employees from experiencing flow or satisfaction in their work.
• Exploitation and inequality: Workers trapped in low-paying, insecure jobs often face conditions that preclude even the possibility of seeking excellence or community.

Conclusion: To justify the expectation that workplaces provide access to the goods of work, society must first guarantee that the bads of work are eliminated or minimized. This includes enforcing fair wages, promoting workplace safety, and preventing exploitative practices. Without this foundational reform, the authors' argument for accessing goods lacks practical relevance, as individuals cannot reasonably flourish in workplaces dominated by the bads of work. Only by addressing these foundational issues can the goods of work become a realistic and just expectation.