The problem with all distributive principles of justice, he believes, is that they violate some of the basic human rights and are therefore inherently unjust. Now the next question arises is what just ownership of property means. According to Nozick, if a person came about in possession of the property justly, i.e. without infringing on someone else's rights, then his ownership is just. So, in essence whether or not a distribution of property is just depends upon how it came about.
The idea is that justice is a complex concept, and it could differ according to individual circumstance. Rawls contended that all of us are ignorant about ourselves and about others and, hence, we are not in a place - in such condition - to determine or apply the principles of justice. These positions allowed Rawls to address two contemporary issues that are equally important, but also tend oppose each other’s views: freedom and equality. The Rawlsian theory of justice is influenced by Hume’s philosophy with its critique of justice that which prioritizes conventions and universal meaning (Forbes, 1985, 68). Hume talked about artificial justice and Rawls coined the so-called artificial device or the “original position”, which is used to determine justice.
This entitlement is based on “the principle of acquisition of holdings, the principle of transfer of holdings, and the principle of rectification of violations of the first two principles.” (Nozick, p. 205) Nozick believes that so long as holdings are obtained through these means and not through defraud, harm, or other nefarious ones, the holdings are just (Nozick, p. 204). Nozick argues against the idea of distributive justice as a way to promote equality of outcome as he believes that forcing people to give up their wealth in order to distribute it to others violates the Entitlement Theory and leads to an unjust outcome; individuals have liberty and should have the freedom to do with their property as they choose (Nozick, p. 209-210). To Nozick, the only time a forced distribution should be considered is in cases of injustice, wherein one person has, in the past, violated another person’s right to acquisition or transfer of holdings (Nozick, p. 205). Thus, Nozick would argue that a system which tries to focus on distributing wealth to those less well-off would be unjust as violates an individual’s property rights and rights to economic liberty, and would be damaging to the efficiency of a free
The second objection is to the common currency, which consistent Bentham recognizes as quantitative, not qualitative. Opponents argue that values cannot be translated into monetary terms. Utilitarians point to the “ticking time-bomb case” to prove that morality is a cost-benefit analysis after all, and that human life does have a price tag whether we acknowledge it or not. Lastly, I agree with consistent Bentham, that moral quarrels when properly understood do encompass to a large degree the application of the principle itself. However, I’d also like to think that morality, or the right thing to do, is more than a cost-benefit analysis.
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
... ... middle of paper ... ...is pretty solid. The most accessible way to argue against it is to argue against materialism. Arguing against materialism with a dualist view is only partially successful because it entails that there still is a material self that is determined which can’t be free in the libertarian sense. The only way to successfully unravel the argument is with an idealist—mind only—substance view. It you viewed humans in this way, humans would not be determined and able to have free will (even in the libertarian sense!)
This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill. Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems.
As a result, failure ... ... middle of paper ... ...d in the discussion of promise keeping and beneficence, identifiable logical or practical contradictions arise when attempting to universalize morally impermissible maxims (according to the CI). Mill argues that the CI only shows “that the consequences of [the maxims] universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” This is erroneous for there is no such “choice” available. The logical and practical contradictions that Mill fails to recognize produce an outcome (rejection of the maxim) necessitated by rationality and a free will. It is not that the consequences are unpleasant, but that their production is irrational. Works Cited Christine Korsgaard.
In his essay “Anarchical Fallacies,” Jeremy Bentham argues that “Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible [i.e. inalienable] rights, rhetorical nonsense,—nonsense upon stilts” Bentham supports his conclusion that not only that these ideas are meaningless, but are also quite dangerous and that natural law is simply nonsense by stating the following reasons: First Bentham called
The concern with distributive justice is seen to compensate the misfortune in society. Some have more property than others by pure luck and is the responsibility of everyone to distribute the scarcity in life. Rawls’ theory of distributive justice introduces the “original position” associated with the “Reflective Equilibrium” (Rawls, 199), where individuals ... ... middle of paper ... ...nd offers an appealing argument of the acquisition of justly held goods, through his principles of acquisition, transfer and rectification he offers as a plausible method for why people should be entitled to the outcomes from their natural assets such as ability, talent and knowledge. It is unlikely that those who inherit large sums of property will question this entitlement, even if that person does not deserve it, or there were other people in society who would benefit from it more. Bibliography Rawls, John “A Theory of Justice” in Elizabeth Smith and H Gene Blocker (eds.)