Nozick Robert is a philosopher who argued about personal ownership is the footstone in justice distribution and the way to make people to own thing in fair way. In the “Distributive Justice,” Robert demonstrated the entitlement theory, which is consisted of original acquisition of holdings principle, transfer of holdings principle, and the rectification of injustice in holdings principle, showing the methods determining justice of how people to own thing, then, via those principles and the example of Wilt Chamberlain, Robert showed the importance of ownership and personal right and tried to criticize the injustice of equal distribution of third party like government. However, Robert had completely ignored the importance of equal distribution …show more content…
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 …show more content…
However, Nozick makes a mistake that voluntary does not represent just. Turn back to Wilt Chamberlain’s example, the action of people decides to give more twenty-five cents to Chamberlain for watching his show does create the inequality. Even though this action does not worse of other directly, but this action does cause the inequality in society. Moreover, Nozick considers fans’ action is rational, but the truth is most people in world are not rational. For example, a fan spends ten thousand dollars to buy a Chamberlain’s shoes even though the shoes only costs one hundred and fifty. Obviously, a rational person never spends such much money to buy such shoes except he or she can sell it in higher price. In addition, some voluntary trade is not just. Slavery is an example. First, assuming A is a person on an island, and A has already owned some food and house. One day, B comes to island for some reason without food and water. In this case, A has right to deny providing food and water to B, and A’s action does not worse off B. Two days later, A provide a deal to B. That is A can give some resource like food and water to B, but B must work for A, and A does not provide any resource to B so that B cannot leave the island. In this case, B must work for A, and B’s action is rational and voluntary. The whole process of transfer between A and B does not
Newton believes that everyone should have the same opportunities in life, but if some because of the circumstances of their lives get a priory or some kind of special treatment then at the moment is a violation of the one who didn’t get that chance. She uses equality before the law and moral idea of equality, with this to two terms she illustrate how when equity under the law is violated to achieve moral equity, then the one doing it undermine the goal of moral equity.
Robert Nozick uses the example of Wilt Chamberlain to develop his theories on entitlement and distribution by establishing his libertarian view of justice in chapter 7 of his book "Anarchy, Stat, And Utopia" . Wilt Chamberlain, the basketball star, charges fans twenty-five cents to watch him play. Nozick creates a world in which we are to assume that the actions leading to this point, for all people, are just. Chamberlain simply offers his services to those who wish to attend the event. Assuming that he continues his show for some time, and people continue to pay the twenty-five cent fee, Chamberlain could generate a great deal of revenue. The people who paid their twenty-five cents did so freely, and although they are left with less money, Wilt Chamberlain has become a very wealthy man. Furthermore, Nozick encourages this example to be used within one’s desired philosophical and political utopia, and it would be fair to say that Will acquired his earnings in a way that has not violated the rights of another individual. Because Chamberlain's earning arose from a just, distributive starting point, the voluntary support of his fans should also be considered just. However, to fully understand how Nozick draws his conclusions about the validity of Chamberlain’s financial gain, is to understand the framework for the historical and non-patterned lenses through which he views the minimal state.
Nozick takes this concept against the ideas of Rawl’s theory of justice and the concept of a social contract. Meaning that in a just society nothing should be subject to any political or social bargaining. Rawl opposes the classical and institutionalist utilitarian theory of justice in which morality is contractual, and claims that human virtues, truth and justice cannot be tradable. Furthermore, he believed that political institutions should have all powers over the lives of individuals and over the market economy conditions. Thus focusing more on resources, and how these resources should be redistributed in order to have a fair and equal social system. Under his belief the principles of social justice provide a mechanism that establishes the rights and duties of social institutions within a society, which defines a justified equitable sharing of benefits and burdens of social
As a result, I am convinced by both philosophers that Justice is needed to protect our properties and possession. Without justice, mankind would become uncontrollable, so working to attain possessions would be in vain for most people. People would steal from each other because they are aware that mankind had laws, no restriction, and no consequence for their action. Furthermore, everybody would try to become superior compared to another. Mankind would have no morality and instead of peace, one’s own self-interest would become
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...
Why is it that a person has to offset his initial gain for the betterment of others? Rawls proposes this idea as the criterion for his second principle, the difference principle. What I argue however, is that the difference principle proposes to remove inequality from society but fails in this endeavor due to retaining enough inequality to benefit the disadvantaged, leaving the principle defective in its nature. This will be the question analyzed in this essay where I will first explain the two principles proposed by Rawls as well as the lexical order or priority, which is a central feature within A Theory of Justice. I...
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2011, January 15). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Arguments about fairness and justice have been up for debate for centuries. "What do we deserve?", a question that has many individuals raising their brows to their efforts in their pursuit to achieve their goals. If it is said that we are all placed on an equal standard why are there individuals struggling to stay afloat? In Arora’s essay, he examines three forms of economic modals of social justices that question that idea of why the prosperous or the impecunious "deserve" their position or stature in life. Out of all of Arora's economic modals that he presents the Meritocratic System is the fairest because it gives everyone a fighting chance.
Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz states how schools that claim they are following restorative approaches through their policies in discipline are not necessarily restorative, but have enough flexibility to allow a restorative response.
“Convincing the non-elite that inequality is morally right. Those most advantaged are justified in giving orders and receiving a greater proportion of valued goods and services, or at least, creating doubts about alternatives. All, individuals strive for cognitive consistency and will develop principles of fairness, such as Distributive Justice. Lastly, there is some evidence for distribution based on need as a result of ability to understand the needs of others. This is called the process of legitimation […]” (2011:461).
In conclusion, even though the arguments make sense on the surface, they fail to take into account for how unpredictable the non-clients of the protection agency can be. In Nozick’s perfect Libertarian world, everyone would subscribe to one protection agency that would protect the rights of everyone. Unfortunately with everyone being free to do as they please in the state of nature, conflict is almost sure to arise. This isn’t necessarily a problem in the current state that we live in but for Nozick’s overall idea of a dominant protection agency these problems seem significant.
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
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.
Dicey’s second principle of ROL concerns equality; “every man whatever be his rank or condition is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amendable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals”
This idea allows for justice to be measured by an equation, each person’s share of something must be justified by some relevant difference, making the equation equal. Each person should receive exactly what is proportional to what they put in. If you work an hour longer than someone then you should receive pay for one more hour. This is equal because you are being compensated exactly for the work you put in and the other person is not shorted in any way because they did not work that extra hour therefore should not receive the extra pay. This theory allows for impartiality when making a decision, it is not based on justice because of your moral character or consequence of your action it is based on equal justice for all based