Rawls vs Nozick John Rawls and Robert Nozick both provide compelling and thought provoking theories regarding the values of liberty and equality. Rawls focuses on both liberty and equality while Nozick theorizes exclusively on liberty. The ideas of Rawls and Nozick have multiple strengths as well as weaknesses which allow for debate and comparison between the two theories. John Rawls was more in agreement with the works of Locke and Rousseau; however, Rawls disagreed with the notion that the State of Nature was a historical situation as opposed to something hypothetical; Rawls instead believed an original position of equality which I agree with (917). Rawls believed humans to be free, rational, self-interested, and most importantly, equal. …show more content…
Overall, I believe Rawls proposes a rational society that is unbiased, but I find fault in the fact that Rawls’ theory so closely resembled the American system. Rawls’ main argument against ethnocentrism is the notion that people, regardless of culture, would choose democracy just as people, not products of a democratic society. I believe that there are other preferred forms of government which provide people with the values or ideals they are searching for in a …show more content…
Nozick agrees with the liberty principle proposed by Rawls, but he disagrees with the equality principle and the fashion in which resources are distributed. I believe the historical principle of distribution is one strength of Nozick’s ideas. The historical principle of distribution states that the justice of any distribution does not depend on how closely it resembles any form of an equality pattern but how the distribution came about (959). I also agree with the theory that people are entitled to anything they acquired voluntarily and anything that is transferred to them voluntarily (958). Nozick does not agree with redistribution of wealth because taking resources from one person to benefit others is not necessarily voluntary. The biggest weaknesses of Nozick’s idea of equality comes from the idea that taxation and federally funded programs would be unjust forcing everything to be owned privately. This creates the most issues because people are self-interested and the virtue of market may not create the balance which Nozick proposed. Public school systems and public roads being deemed illegitimate would create issues with access. Also, making taxation illegal would make it difficult to have services like a police force, fire department, court system, or penal system because they would have to be paid by the individual directly. The police and court systems could become corrupt
John Locke was perhaps the best example of someone who rejected the absolute view of government and had views that were radically different from it. Locke believe that people were born reasonable and moral – it was their natur...
John Locke strongly believed in more rights for the people and was against oppression. In his book, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke stated, “(W)e must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose [manage] of their possessions. . .” (Document A). Locke means every man is naturally equal, no one was created better and he has certain guaranteed rights. This helps society because it would deny a monarch to strip a person of their guaranteed rights and it would make the monarch less powerful and his/her power would be given to the people.
John Locke was an English philosopher who lived during 1632-1704. In political theory he was equally influential. Contradicting Hobbes, Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance; all human beings were equal and free to pursue "life, health, liberty, and possessions." The state formed by the social contract was guided by the natural law, which guaranteed those inalienable rights. He set down the policy of checks and balances later followed in the U.S. Constitution; formulated the doctrine that revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation; and argued for broad religious freedom.
Robert Nozick in the excerpt from his book Anarchy, State and Utopia presents his ideas on why a government in power should not spread the wealth of the state among all of the residents. Nozick writes mainly in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in which Rawls focuses on the idea of the state working towards improving financially the lives of those that are in the worst conditions. To explain his point of view Nozick expounds on various concepts that provide a better understanding of the procedure that lead to him arriving at the conclusion that he did. This includes the entitlement theory of Nozick. In this paper I will explain how Nozick reaches the conclusion that redistributive justice should not take place along with a detailed look at the various major concepts of his theory. In addition, I will also provide my view on what John Rawls’s argument against Nozick’s theory might be. Finally, I will explain why I agree with John Rawl’s theory and present detailed reasoning.
Rawls begins his work by defining the role of the principles of justice “to specify the fair terms of social cooperation. These principles specify the basic rights and duties to be assigned by the main political and social institutions, and they regulate the division of benefits arising from social cooperation and allot the burdens necessary to sustain it.” (7) Through these fair principles of justice, Rawls aims to build a realistic utopia. The two principles of justice he spells out in his work are: “Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and
John Rawls was a man who played an influential role in shaping political thought in the late 20th century. Rawls is accredited for writing two major contributions that has helped influence political ideology of those even today. His first piece was published in 1971, A Theory of Justice, which argues his belief of justice on the domestic level and also that reconciliation between liberty and equality must occur in order to have a just society . Rawls’s belief of what justice should be is extremely controversial, and helped put Rawls on the map. Later, after Rawls gained a reliable reputation he published another piece called, Law of the Peoples, which was his application of justice towards international affairs and what he believes America’s Foreign Policy should emulate. In this I will describe both of his works and then throughout I will offer a brief critique on both A Theory of Justice and Law of the Peoples.
Rawls states that you cannot reimburse for the sufferings of the distressed by enhancing the joys of the successful. Fairness according to him occurs when the society makes sure that every individual is treated equally before the law and given a c...
INTRODUCTION John Rawls most famous work, A Theory of Justice, deals with a complex system of rules and principles. It introduces principles of justice to the world, principles which Rawls argues, are meant to create and strengthen equality while removing the inequality which exists within society. These principles are both meant as standalone laws and regulations, but they can be joined as well. The main function of the first principle is to ensure the liberty of every individual, while the second principle is meant to be the force for the removal of inequality through what Rawls calls distributive justice. I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his principle of difference and not an attempt at a neutral analysis.
Rawls’ argues that a person’s good is that which is needed for the successful execution of a rational long-term goal of life given reasonably favorable circumstances. He described the definition of good as the satisfaction of rational desires and identified goods as liberty, opportunity, income, wealth and self-respect. Rawls creates a hypothetical society, via a thought experiment known as the “Veil of Ignorance,” in which all that you know of yourself is eliminated from your mind to allow you to come to a rational decision on how you would like your society to be organized. Rawls principle is that under a social contract, what is right must be the same for everyone. The essence of Rawls' “veil of ignorance” is that it is designed to be a representation of persons purely in their capacity as free and equal moral persons.
Locke believes that everyone is born as a blank slate. According to Locke there is no innate human nature but human nature is something we create. And because we are born as an equal blank slate all men have the opportunity to create human nature therefore Locke believed all men are created equal. Unlike Bentham Locke believed that government needed to take a step back and allow for each individual to have the right to three things: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Governments role should not be in dictating people what to do but to allow individuals to their three
Individual liberty is the freedom to act and believe as one pleases. It is a widely controversial issue when it comes to the power of the government policing over individual�s freedoms. In this paper, I am going to compare two well known philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls. In part one, I will explain the political and social positions taken by each philosopher. I will explain how Thomas Hobbes is associated with the �social contract theory,� and how John Rawls� theory of government is a �theory of justice.� In doing so, I will describe their different viewpoints on the government and its power over the people. In Part two, I will describe the differences between Hobbes and Rawls. I will argue that Rawls position on the government is the most reasonable, and I will explain why I believe so. In part three, I will explain my own theory and viewpoint with the example of sex laws, including prostitution. With this example, I will tell how and why I believe individual liberty is important. In part four, I will explain how someone might disagree with my position. I will explain how conservative individuals would argue that the government should regulate sexual activity to protect the greater good of society. Finally, I will conclude with discussing the power of the government and individual liberties in today�s society.
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
To conclude, Rawls’ strengths lie in his focus on the individual, protection of liberties, and equal opportunity which supports a healthy society. The criticisms of his theory include a question as to what is best for society as a whole, dismissal of beneficial inequalities and the potential for society to develop its own code of ethics as it has in reality. These criticisms, however, do not stand up to careful examination, and it is my opinion that John Rawls’ principles are in good standing.
...e achieved when the Liberty and Difference Principle are enacted with the veil of ignorance. On the contrary, Nozick argues that Rawls’s theory is exactly the sort of patterned principle that infringes upon individual liberty. As an alternative, Nozick provides his unpatterned principle as the ideal distribution of goods in a society. To me, Rawls’s argues his theory in a manner where his principles of justice are not only difficult to achieve, but ultimately are exceedingly deficient in providing general utility. The veil of ignorance has proved to be almost impossible as well as unethical. The Difference Principle in itself is unable to justly distribute property since it clearly violates an individual’s liberty. Since Rawls’s method of distributive justice is rendered unreasonable and inefficient, it leaves us with a clear answer derived from two disjunctions.
Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original position and Rawls’ potential response to this.