Rawls Distributive Justice Analysis

According to Rawls, the basic structure of society is unjust in the sense that only the rich benefits whole the poor are left worse off. For Rawls a society is just when it maximizes liberty and minimizes inequalities (maximin principle). Based on the perception that society is unjust and unfair, Rawls develop the theory of distributive justice. His theory of distributive justice revolves around two principles; liberty and equality. Liberty grants us the right to have the utmost basic rights, such as freedom of speech. Equality allows all social and economic positions to be open to all, meaning that anyone applying has an equal chance of being hired regardless of what skills they have. To enforce the two principle of justice, we have to figure

out what people would agree to without prejudice. Rawls believed that everyone is self-interested and would pick a society where it will benefit them so he created a hypothetical situation where it would be impossible to maximize our well-being at the expense of others, this is known as the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance dictates that in a state where we do not know what our life will be like (what family we are born to, what social class, what neighborhood we will live in, etc.) then we will choose a society that will benefit those who are worse off because there’s a possibility that we will be in that group.

Nozick objects to Rawls’ theory stating that his distributive justice theory is actually redistributive justice because Rawls is taking something that already exist and splitting it equally among others. Nozick felt that Rawls’ theory is ahistorical because it doesn’t talk about the process by which an individual come to hold their property. He believed that contrary to what Rawls is trying to achieve with the distributive justice theory, it actually promotes an unjust way to transfer property because redistributing resources (through taxation) results to stealing and forced labor. For Nozick, what determines justice in property is not the equal distribution but rather the ways in which we acquire those goods/property. He calls this the entitlement theory. Nozick’s entitlement theory states that the distribution of properties or holdings within a society is just if and only if everyone is entitled to what they have. In order to confirm this, he breaks it down into three principles in which we can obtain holdings justly; Justice in Acquisition,

Justice in Transfer, and Rectification of Injustice. The Justice in Acquisition states that a person can claim something as his own as long as it is previously unowned and would not cause a disadvantage to others. Justice in Transfer is the process of committing to own what was previously owned or voluntarily transferring one’s property. The Rectification of Injustice is when we find ways to restore goods back to their rightful owners. Nozick, unlike Rawls, does not believe in equal distribution, he feels that as long as we acquire or property justly we are entitled to them. For instance, in the Wilt Chamberlain argument, Chamberlain is an astounding basketball player who plays for an extra 25 cents from each fan. At the end, one million fans attended the game allowing Chamberlain to receive $250,000. Because Chamberlain has $250,000 more than anyone else, this would conflict with the just distribution of holdings, so he’s not technically allowed to keep it. Nozick, however, believes that Chamberlain is entitled to this sum of money because he obtained it through legitimate means since the fans could have spent their 25 cents on anything else but decided to give it to Chamberlain instead. So, according to Nozick as long as goods and property are obtained through the entitlement theory (legitimate means) then it is just no matter how unfair the situation may be.