The Wilt Chamberlain example says that we have the right to pay Chamberlain out of our own pockets because it is our money and we can spend it on what we want. But that is too simple and narrow a view. Payment is not only the action of getting someone to do something, or making sure we have a fair trade, it is also a way of rewarding certain products or actions. It is not at all obvious that just because a group wants to pay for something they should be able to reward it.
Maybe it is not only Nozick’s rules of just transfer that matter when we are asking whether a trade is moral. Other rules of justice matter too; regardless of whether we all voluntarily pay our justly acquired income it is possible that we should not reward unjust actions. Reducing the complex issues of trade and acquisition to a few simple rules might be tempting, but it leaves out important pieces of the moral puzzle. For comparison to the Chamberlain example, imagine that 1 million people want to pay 25 cents to see dog fighting. It does not seem that it is acceptable to pay for dogfighting regardless of a lack of theft or fraud. Rewarding such behavior seems wrong.
Still,
…show more content…
Nozick did not, in fact, rule out other issues of moral justice when he laid out the just transfer of holdings. He never said that dog fighting and Wilt Chamberlain playing basketball can be rewarded equally by large numbers of people. He might actually support moral constraints on trade in addition to those that he enumerates as the principles of just transfer. And since he only says that “if the world were wholly just” would his three principles of justice in transfer be enough to cover everything, maybe Nozick did leave room to allow moral questions other than those of fraud and theft to weigh on the justice of a transfer. But the problem with that reply is that he does consider a world that is not “wholly just” and he still only addresses theft and fraud as the injustices in it. My example of rewarding unjust behavior is left out of the equation of justice. It almost seems that, as long as the leaders of a dog fighting ring do not pick anyone’s pocket during the show, Nozick thinks they do nothing wrong. Or maybe he thinks they do nothing wrong in their sale. He might think they do something wrong generally, but not in the sale of the show. The transfer of money for tickets itself is still just. This makes some sense; the transfer is just, even though the actions surrounding it are not. Nozick might think it would also be unjust to interfere and force the participants not to engage in the just transfer of tickets to see dogfighting no matter how unjust the sport is. Now we have a problem.
We are forced to choose whether it is more unjust to interfere with someone’s right to a just transfer of tickets or to allow dogfighting. Weighing these kinds of issues is incredibly complicated in part because the injustices will change by case. We have to think about the balance for each individual case and whether interfering or the consequence of not interfering is more unjust. Nozick seems to want to say that interfering is always unjust, but is it always more unjust than the consequence of not interfering? Clearly the answer is no, since we can interfere with one woman’s liberty to freely exchange her justly acquired money with a hitman in order to arrange a murder. The consequences of not interfering in this case are judged to be worse than the action of interfering with the woman’s
liberty. So we have to decide in each case of transfer whether a) the transfer is just b) the other circumstances are just, and c) if not whether interfering with the transfer is more unjust than the circumstances of letting it go ahead. This last seems like a personal decision of weighing options. It also seems like such a huge undertaking that it would require a much larger government to coordinate it than Nozick is willing to allow. In the end, at least in the Chamberlain example, Nozick does not address any moral questions of transfer other than that the money or other property is justly held. He leaves out all of the above maneuvering and simplifies the argument so much it leaves out important questions. Matters of Consent Nozick says that there is no way of keeping a patterned distribution system in place without interference. It seems like a weak argument for why unpatterned systems are just (ones without interference that is) to simply say that the alternative is unjust. Again, Nozick seems to be oversimplifying. We might honestly consent to having government interference in order to be equal in regard to resources, power, and privilege. If we consent then any interference would simply be the government facilitating our transfer of our portion to each other. A voluntary transfer is just, presumably even one with a middle man since we do not give our money directly to Chamberlain we trust his agents to give it to him for us. In other words, we might consent to be taxed so that our goods are redistributed to those most in need though we do not know who they are (or for many other reasons). We ask the government to handle it for us, to find the people who need welfare, and to give them our money. This is a just transfer of goods and is not thievery as Nozick might think taxes are. It must be acceptable for the government to interfere with us if we consent to it. Someone could argue that we would only voluntarily carry out transfers that we benefit from, but Nozick made no such claim. He talks about gifts as a reasonable transfer of goods and we get no benefit from gifts, so clearly he finds transfers from which we gain nothing to be allowable. The problem is that, as with any consent argument, this one has a fatal flaw. Nozick could say that we would simply never consent to taxes. We would not consent to have the products of our labour taken from us when the government sees fit. He says that if the government can take something of ours after some period of time has elapsed it might as well take it right away. Extend that argument and the second government can take our property we might as well not have anything of our own that we can count on. We would not consent to have government redistribute our goods because we can do that ourselves if we want to (we can give to charity) with less risk of losing anything we want to keep. Now we have an argument with one side saying we would consent and another saying we would never. It seems that these arguments about consent to government or taxation change depending on whether or not the individual arguing them would consent. I would consent and my neighbor would not and we are hard pressed to convince each other to switch sides. Nozick would never consent to my socialist government and I would never consent to his minimalist one. Which might be why we have to pin consent on the consent of the majority (Locke) or make it clear that the alternative is so horrible that everyone really would consent (Hobbes). In short, consent is a dangerous area to get into though it is not one to overlook.
The source that I used, “Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Biography” by Biography.com no authors are listed is a great source that gave me a lot of information that will help me with my reader response essay. I came across this website by entering my search question into Google. After looking through a dozen of articles “Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Biography” had the most detailed information of all the links. This article gave me a lot of information that will be correlating to my search question which is this: What major influences did Kareem Abdul-Jabbar have in his basketball career? The “Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Biography” article had three sections that broke
Steve Nash is considered one of the greatest point guards in the first decade of NBA, and he already became a national hero in Canada based on his tremendous achievement as a professional basketball player. However, according to his interview, Nash was considered a player without sufficient talent to be even a good college player in the United States. No college was willing to offer him a scholarship initially, because he was a Caucasian player from Canada. Caucasian players were widely considered as athletic inferior to African players, and Canada was also considered a country that has few talented basketball players. This is a typical stereotype about Caucasian basketball players in NBA, and usually
In “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid,” a response to the previous argument that also appeared in the Baltimore Sun, former Penn State football player Warren Hartenstine argues that “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid.” Like Marx, Hartenstine is writing to a similar audience, but argues why student-athletes shouldn’t be paid above scholarships like professional athletes are.
The NBA is well known for the number of amazing professional athletes it has had over the years. Some of the most gifted and talented individuals come through the NBA and one of the better-known superstars is none other than Kobe Bryant. For years people have wondered what makes Bryant so successful. The main contributors that lead to Kobe Bryant’s success is his hard work and dedication, his mindset, his natural ability’s and talent, and the people that have helped him throughout his life. Kobe Bryant was very successful in the NBA because of the amount of hard work he has put in, the people in his life, his relentless determination and his god given natural abilities.
“A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.” Jackie Robinson went through many struggles from whites, since he was the first black baseball player. Robinson was an excellent ball player who exceeded at every level. He had a magnificent Batting Average and spoke against racism. Robinson played while dealing with threats from fans and other teams. Jackie Robinson, the first black baseball player, set many records and legacies for Americans to think about.
Dwyane Wade was born on January, 17 1982. His parents are Jalinda Wade and Dwyane Wade. Dwyane Wade went to college and chose Marquette University. Dwyane Wade entered
Wilt was a very famous basketball player. He played center position for the Los Angeles Lakers and the Philadelphia/San Francisco Warriors. Wilt built a huge mansion where he would throw parties all the time because he became super rich. He played for the University Of Kansas before playing in the NBA. Wilt changed NBA history like never before seen.
6) Clark, Liz. “Athletes Say They Deserve to Be Paid.” Charlotte Observer. (Charlotte, N.C.). April 3, 1994: pg. 4G. Sports. Eleanor Goldstein. Vol. 4. Boca Raton: SIRS, 1994. Art. 65.
Salvador, Damon. “Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid?” 20 April 2013.Web. 18 May 2014.
Many people can easily picture this scene in their minds: the roaring crowds, the smell of easy- to-eat foods, and the thousands of people all dressed in the same colors. That’s a description of game day at a major college. College sports bring in a lot of money, yet their players don’t receive any money. Many people view this as something that needs to be changed while others believe that only professionals should be compensated. In the essays “Let Stars Get Paid” and “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid”, both authors give their opinions on whether or not college athletes should be paid. College athletes should not be paid because they already receive many benefits from being athletes.
...ecks and be treated as a farm system for the NFL, NBA, or MLB. If these athletes started getting paid now, at the college level, then the major leagues of these sports would suffer tremendously and lose marketability and money. A final solution to not having players get paid or receive certain benefits is maybe these head coaches of certain universities should not be getting the average 2 million dollars a year to be a coach, in some cases more than the presidents of these universities.(Chicago Tribune) There could be major strides made by simply merging that athletes shouldn’t get paid in whole dollars, but should receive paid benefits in which they would not have to worry about starving, losing scholarships due to injury or sub-par play. That I think would make the world for college athletes a better place, where both the schools benefit and the players benefit.
In recent years, a major controversy in the NCAA has been whether or not student athletes in college should be paid for playing sports. There are different viewpoints from different people stating if they should or not. Many people believe that they are already being rewarded enough with their education being paid, but even with the school’s help with their tuition and school fees, many have trouble paying personal expenses. Even though some people believe they shouldn’t be compensated for their hard work and dedication, it is the right thing to do, due to their lack of time occupied by sports and schoolwork. Many famous athletes in college such as Johnny Manziel and Tim Tebow bring in millions of dollars into their universities due to publicity and even though they are breaking their backs they don’t receive a single dime for their hard work. The college coaches also get a really high salary, just for coaching the players. They also receive many contracts that include shoe contracts, TV and radio contracts, and many perks along the way. When the coaches get their teams to the playoffs or win major games, they might receive big bonuses. It doesn’t make sense that the athletes are the ones that are doing all the work to get the far yet they don’t see any form of compensation. Many executives from the NCAA and the universities also get millions of dollars from big sporting events, and they do nothing to earn it. The athletes are the ones taking stuff out of their time and working hard to not get paid.
In college sports athletes perform on the big stage in front of thousands of people every week and receive no money for their performances. These athletes receive no money for their performance because it is made illegal by the NCAA for any student athlete to receive any type of reward for their performance. In the last five years there has been a heated debate on whether the NCCA should start paying college athletes. People responded to this situation with mixed views and opinions. The first reason that people have shown views against pay for play is because scholarships pay for college athlete’s school either fully or partially. Secondly people believe pay for play would create jealousy and hypocrisy on college campuses between administration, college students, and other civic workers. The first reason that people have been convinced about pay for play is overpaid college coaches who make millions for the little work they do. Next the NCCA, Colleges, and merchandisers profit millions off the athletes every week without any of that revenue given back to the athletes. Next people believe scholarships are ineffective or incomplete. Lastly people believe the corrupt system of the NCAA is a reason college athletes should be paid. The NCCA has proposed plans to enact a pay for play plan including adding a two thousand dollar stipend for student athletes but this has been on hold for now. In society for student athletes to succeed in college and college careers the NCCA must pay them.
Without even getting into whether college athletes should be paid, I just don’t see a scenario where college athletes can be paid without allowing the gap to grow between the haves and the have-nots. (Dosh 578)
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 ...