More handpicked essays just for you.
In Anarchy, State and Utopia, Robert Nozick advocates
In Anarchy, State and Utopia, Robert Nozick advocates
Robert Nozick utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition. Nozick’s central claim is that any sort of patterned distribution will have a significant effect on liberty. First, Nozick’s idea of a “patterned distribution” needs to be separated from the notion of “unpatterned distribution”. Obviously, patterned distribution adheres to an unspecific pattern. Nozick’s own theory in itself is unpatterned, a theory that suggests that each person acquisition of goods have been acquired through legitimate means. Nozick’s conception of “legitimate means” is manifested through his Entitlement Theory. The Entitlement Theory ... ... middle of paper ... ...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.
Robert Nozick was a political philosopher who best reflects the political thinking of the United States, to the extent that his work is unthinkable without considering the history and the constitution of the nation. From this starting point Nozick show us that in the state of nature men are entitled on one hand to their lives and safety, and also to self-possession. Inspired by empiricist philosopher John Locke who proclaimed that natural rights exist and are claimable, Nozick claims that his concept of a minimal state is morally justifiable. “Only a minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against any force, theft, and fraud, is justified. Any more extensive state violates person’s rights not to be force to do certain
Nozick introduces his theory by calling a “minimal state” (Nozick 149) the only justifiable state that does not infringe on the rights of the people living in this state. Nozick as a libertarian, believes in the freedom of the individual over all else., Nozick says, “There is no one natural dimension or weighted sum or combination of a small number of natural dimensions that yields the distributions generated in accordance with the principle of entitlement”(Nozick 157). The patterns, upon which certain sections argue for the distribution of wealth, such as poverty etc., do not impress Nozick at all. Continuing the belief of individual freedom over all else, Nozick then presents his entitlement theory, which advocates that all of one’s possessions sho...
According to Rawls, the challenge of justice is to ensure a just distribution of primary goods that include powers and opportunities, rights and liberties, means of self-respect, income and wealth among others (Rawls, 2001). Rawls disputes the earlier predominant common source of injustice, the utilitarianism theory, which states that justice is best defined by that which provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The theory of utilitarianism ignores the moral worth of an individual. This theory does not take into consideration the minority. An example is the mistreatment of the Jews by the Nazi Germans (Rawls, 2001).
I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his difference principle and not an attempt at a neutral analysis. I have read the Theory of Justice and I have found it wanting in both scope and realism. The difference principle proposed by Rawls, his second principle is the focus of my critique. While this paper will not focus solely on the second principle, all analysis done within this essay are all targeted towards the scope of influence that Rawls treats the second principle with.
Roemer, John E. (1996), ‘Equality of Welfare versus Equality of Resources’ in Theories of Distributive Justice, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 236-261.
Although, people should have a right to accumulate their own wealth and hold onto it, we can see that focusing on the process view can ultimately lead to an end result that is unjust for the society as a whole. Nozick maximizes individual liberties, but he excludes the restrictive liberties that Rawls’s second principle describes. Under Nozick’s theory, those who are least advantaged do not get a fair shot in society. Furthermore, Rawls proves that sacrificing certain individual liberties is morally justified if it creates an end-result that is just.
In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than others and some will hold places of greater importance in society. Rawls’s argument is that to ensure the stability of society the two principles of justice are needed to govern the assignment of rights and regulate the inequality (Rawls 1971, 53). Any infringement of an individuals rights or inequality outside the parameters of the principles of justice are unjust.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
In this case, pattern means distribution of wealth follows a structure. That is, the resource everyone can receive depends on certain standard. For example, if someone has better personality, then he or she can get more money or some other resource. Or, if someone works harder than other people, then he or she will be paid more. Then, Nozick uses wilt Chamberlain to demonstrate why pattern does not fit. First, Nozick assume there is a certain distribution called D1 and it is the only just distribution. In this assumption, people are allowed do what they want to do with their possession, so they can transfer their possession to whoever they want, and all of them are paid justly under D1. If one day some fans go to watch Wilt Chamberlain’s game and decide to give Wilt chamberlain more twenty-five cents for each ticket. Then, Wilt Chamberlain will have more money than any other player in the game, so the distribution is changed from D1 to D2 which is a new distribution. Because the transfer from fans to Wilt Chamberlain is just according to the second principle in entitlement theory, Nozick said D2 is also just. Therefore, Nozick considers it does not matter how people define contribution to be just, new distribution created by old just distribution is just because people are free to transfer resource to another and pattern. However, in fact, D2 is not a fair
With the issue of income inequality becoming more salient in present day politics, it has been argued that the United States is doing little to ensure equality of opportunity. Many economists today point to low levels of intergenerational social and economic mobility as evidence of these trends. Philosopher John Rawls’ second principle of justice states that inequalities can exist in society as long as they improve the general wellbeing of the least well off members of society. However, current inequalities in income and opportunities in the United States have been said to violate Rawls second principle of justice, because of their inability to provide the least well off members of society with an improvement in wellbeing. In this paper, I will delineate the argument underlying Rawls second principle, as well as its background, conditions and requirements and justify why Rawls would be correct to assume that current inequalities in income and opportunity in the United States are unjust in regards to the wellbeing of citizens.
Liberty and equality belong to the same category as moral conceptions. Despite both aiming at improving lives of the people, their relationship is in conflict so that we have to choose between them. Liberty and equality have been discussed over and over and those discussions have been generally inconclusive. Philosophers and scholars who embarked on this discussion have ended up with different notions. From egalitarian point of view, liberty and equality cannot coexist peacefully and they clash in the area of property rights. Property is infringed by government to compensate those who naturally do not own much property. On the contention of the two concepts, Ronald Dworkin argues that if there really were a conflict between equality and liberty, equality would have to win (Dworkin, 2000). This sentiment implies that the two terms are rivals. Let us take equality of wealth as a goal; achieving and maintaining equal wealth amongst citizens would require violation of liberty. Maintaining equality of wealth would require a redistribution of resources over a time such as taking wealth from other people and give it to others infringing upon the right to private property. Dworkin stresses that egalitarians are mainly concerned with socio-economic equality imposed by the state through progressive taxes and welfare provision (Dworkin, 2000). Basing on the original position that all men have equal access to goods, it will be justifiable for the state to introduce redistributive taxes on the rich who do not have any justified claim to their property. This paper will further examine the conflict between liberty and equality by looking at their definitions from the perspective of different philosophers and scholars.
A society that is ruled by liberty contains morals, morals that come with rights that must be respected in order to preserve integrity. In his article “A Right to do Wrong”, Ethics, vol. 92 (1981), pp. 21-39, Jeremy Waldron argues that if people in a society take moral rights seriously they must accept an individuals “right to do wrong” from a moral perspective. Having a choice to do wrong from a moral point of view creates diversity in a society which lead’s to development in the society as a whole. Waldron offers a paradox to explain his position on individuals having a moral right to act in ways that might be seen as wrong from a moral point of view. I will explain and outline Jeremy Waldron’s position on the idea of individuals having the moral right to do wrong, and I will also evaluate Jeremy Waldron’s position and demonstrate if there is really such a moral right using my views that will be enhanced by John Stewart Mill views.
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
In chapter 7 of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick explains one of his most famous theories "distributive justice" which is based on "right," of justice in the acquisition, justice in the transference and justice in the rectification. This theory lays on the idea that everyone can acquire ownership of certain parts of the earth. Nozick argues that people can gain this ability by acquisition, transfer, and rectification. The first two, I believe, are the most significant ones because both involve a sense of autonomy, which autonomy comes more from the individual and not from a settled state. Justice also plays an important role when it comes to this theory. According to Nozick, each one of these forms has to be exercised through a sense of justice
Rawls suggested that a set of principles is required for choosing among the various social arrangements which determine this division of advantages and for underwriting an agreement on the proper distributive shares. These principles are th...