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.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...o played no role in garnering that wealth. An example in today’s world that I think of is Bernie Ecclestone, the supreme authority of Formula One racing who is worth billions of dollars and his two heiress daughters, Tamara and Petra. The two women recently purchased some of the most expensive houses in Los Angeles while their contribution towards their father’s running of an entire sport is nil. The principle of justice here will not find any faults as the money they get will be transferred legally, but this keeps money in a family where other than one person no one else made any contributions. The obscurity, in which thousands of talented individuals toil away while children born into rich families enjoy their inheritances, is the final fallacy in Nozick’s theory that convinces me that John Rawls with a fair result ending in mind is the better of the two theories.
In the critical studies of Held (1987), the political activist and philosopher argues that a contemporary society is now influenced by the contractual patterns of relations. Held argues, “we are told that modern democratic states rest on a social contract, that their economies should be thought of as a free market, where producers, employers, consumers, and employees make contractual agreements” (Held, 1987, p. 782). In this context, society perceives a culture as a free market, as well. Therefore, various philosophers and political activists consider that morality itself could also be perceived from contractual terms. In response to these assumptions, other political theorists also contribute to understanding of a contractual society. Despite the fact that Robert Nozick was not considered to be a political activist and philosophy, his contributions to political frameworks are evident. In particular, Nozick has had a major influence on the analysis of personal identity, as well as the analysis of political right-wing contributions. So, in order to understand why Held introduces claims against the current system, it is essential to consider her social and political views and compare those with the contractual political theories, supporting that the government should serve as a moralizing tool for the community first.
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.
...as we love our limbs. He talks bout how as adults, it is good to give to your children your knowledge and reasoning. To teach them love, happiness, kindness and good energy will further them in life. What they do with it is there own responsibility, but to teach them what you know is good. He mentions that we should not harness all of our knowledge for our children, but also for everyone amongst us. Nozick talks about his philosophy when it comes to wealthy families bequeathing inheritances to this children, and how this can be a dangerous act because it is a form of dominance and power. I completely agree with this philosophy. While money will help your child at some things, knowledge is always more pristine. The ability to have relationships, and to enhance your children’s knowledge of the world is a far better inheritance than the dissipating value of money.
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
In the family example there is a family with two children, one child is eighteen and the other is eight . One child is ten years older and has a job, unlike the younger child. According to Nozick the older child having more than the other because the younger child has no source of income is fine. The older child should be able to have more and make choices that benefit them without considering the younger child. The older child's choices do not need to reflect the younger child's interests. The parents who are representing the government in this example, have no right to tell the older child to consider the younger child in all the older child’s choices. The older child is fairly making an inequality between themselves and their sibling. If the older child was stealing from the younger child to make the inequality, then the parents would have a duty to step in to correct the inequality because that would be unfair.
Nozick= This passage is advocating that your labor is your own, and by taking the earnings of your labor through taxation, it is morally wrong to do so. This is part of Nozick’s bigger argument for a minimalist state.
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
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.
Robert Nozick gives an example of Distributive Justice in his writing, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. The example consists of a basketball player named Chamberlain, who gets twentyfive cents for every ticket sold,
First, it condemns others to ‘meager hand-to-mouth existence. Indeed, Bob no longer pursues his conceptions of a good life, even though his goals should be equally respected with dignity. Second, the first-come, first-served doctrine of appropriation that Nozick accepts is unfair. As a fair procedure of appropriation, the system which equalises chances for appropriation is better than a first-come, first-served doctrine of appropriation. However, Nozick’s proviso permits a first-come, first-served doctrine of appropriation even when chances are unequal. Due to this counterexample, Nozick’s proviso is inconsistent with the idea of treating people as persons with dignity. Therefore, Nozick’s formula is inconsistent with Kantian principle. Nozick’s formula
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 Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that a rational, mutually disinterested individual in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, is liable to choose as their principles of justice a) guaranteed fundamental liberties and b) the nullification of social and economic disparities by universal equality of opportunities, which are to be of greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society , . Rawls’ system of societal creation has both strengths and weaknesses, but is ultimately sound.
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
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