Governing ourselves is an important issue that has been discussed since the beginning of History. With Aristotle came the idea that we are “political animals” and that we are therefore forced to form a society. That is how we came to form states that need to be governed according to laws. The aim of these laws is problematic: for classical philosophers, the aim of the laws is and must be the Common Good: happiness for everyone in the state, which is regarded as a perfect community. This conception puts the benefit of all above the benefit of each and gives to the state the responsibility to be rational and moral.
Nevertheless, often, states are seen as aggressive immoral entities, for example when they collect taxes, repress certain behaviors, etc.
So states behave non morally vis-à-vis particular interests to achieve their higher goal, the common good: paying taxes hurt people on the short term but is supposed to benefit the society on the longer one for example. I will here argue that states have to be unjust.
In Aquinas’ conception of a state, people within would raise oppositions, because particular interests necessarily clash with the common good. Based on this idea that individual freedom is the highest aim, Nozick develops his theory of libertarianism. But we morally need sort of a fair state, position that Rawls adopts. However, here also one has to give up individual interests, and thus liberties. Therefore, we might have to accept the loosening of some of our freedom, as argued by Hobbes, to live together and the state has to commit “necessary injustices”.
In his treaty On Law, Thomas Aquinas defends the position that “the law is always something directed to the common good”. Laws are thus directed toward a comm...
... middle of paper ...
...o live with the “necessary injustice” of the state.
Works Cited
- Aquinas, Thomas. ‘First Part of the Second Part: On Law’, Summa Theologica.
- Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan, ed. by Edwin Curley (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co., 1994)
- Libertarian Party 1971. The Party of Principle. Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom.’s website.
- Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1999).
- Arrington, Robert L., Western Ethics. An Historical Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998).
- Feser, Edward, ‘Robert Nozick (1938-2002)’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Lloyd, Sharon A. and Sreedhar, Susanne, "Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Edward N. Zalta (2014).
- Wenar, Leif, ‘John Rawls’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Edward N. Zalta (2013).
...onstitute injustice. Nosick favors a state in which the dominant protection agency as the only form of "government" serves to protect those who chose to freely participate in the service. The individual is free to go about his life so long as he does not violate an individual or worsen the conditions of the land for others. Having the right to ownership does not mean the right to harm, but rather the right to exclude. Just as I would not steal property from another individual (without fear of the protection agency), how is it just for anyone, including the government, to take earnings from individuals in the form of distribution or taxation? If just acquisition arises from the just history (any form you see fit), than wealth and free spending are simply functions within society with discretion falling under the responsibility of the buyer and seller of the goods.
The South argued that protecting the integrity of “States’ Rights” served as the primary justification for the Civil War. However, the idea of states rights is rooted in greed – in the effort to maintain or grow economic power. “States Rights” is defined as rights...
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.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Available at: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_hobbes/leviathan.html.
be just the people within the state must also be just. A man is just when he
John Rawls’ theory of justice is one of the most interesting philosophies to have emerged in modern times. It was introduced in the 1970s when A Theory of Justice was published. It was revised several times, with the most recent done in the year 1999. Essentially, the Rawlsian philosophy approaches justice according to the idea of fairness. 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.
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.
Watterson, Bill. The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1995.
When it comes to the views of Robert Nozick on justice, Rawls and he share some points but differ on others. One major difference between Rawls and Nozick's views is Nozick's opinion on the distribution of wealth. According to Nozick, every individual is entitled to what they earn for themselves, as long as one or both of his requirements...
Robert Nozick was an American philosopher from Harvard University born November 16, 1938. He was the president of the American Philosophical Association and an author of many philosophical books. He is mostly known for his response to John Rawls, A Theory of Justice published in 1971. His response was written in Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974 which is considered one of the greatest philosophical writings published. Nozick gives his justification for libertarianism in this work of art. Libertarianism is the idea that the state should have limited power in society while most of the things are controlled by free markets. Our textbook “Exploring Philosophy” sums up Robert Nozicks points best when he says “In treating all goods as through they were unowned and distributing them in accord with some preferred scheme, we ignore the source of these goods in the labor and ingenuity of the people who created them.” Throughout the book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, he goes over a number of topics that he believes will lead to a perfect society.
In our readings of Anarchy, State, and Utopia we learned of Nozick’s account of the minimal state. The minimal state is one whose only function is to protect its citizens from being hurt by force as well as protecting it from fraud and the breaking of any contracts it makes with other citizens in the state. Nozick believes that this is the only state that is justified. Any state that does more in its actions than the minimal state that Nozick describes invariably violates the rights of the people. In this paper I will first briefly explain how Nozick derives the minimal state from the original Lockean state of nature before I examine a few of the difficulties and problems that I believe arise from how Nozick forms his argument for the minimal state. These problems include non-clients to the dominant protection agency possibly having their natural rights infringed upon; non-clients abusing the system paying clients of the dominant protection agency into gaining more than just protection, and the dominant protection agency automatically having rights over other smaller agencies.
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.
John Rawls’ Justice as fairness attempts to both define the principles typical of justice and describe what a just society would necessary entail by the conception presented. What is described is not a perfectly good society, as justice is but one virtue among many, but a just one. Specifically, Rawls’ conception is that justice and fairness are one in the same. Using this as a starting point, Rawls focuses foremostly on the practices in a society, rather than any individual action. In this way, he expounds on what is meant by the term fairness and what value that term has in explaining justice. In this paper of three parts, I will first describe Rawls position on justice, including this position’s main principles. Secondly, I will examine
... thoroughly individuals are connected with their ends. Alternatively, Rawls asks, what exactly must we do when individuals have unique conceptions of the good? In what way should the advantages of social collaboration be dispersed? Rawls believes that a reasonable method should be to consider what principles we should choose in the event we did not actually recognize our conception of the good. Nevertheless, the concern has very little to do with precisely how difficult or simple it will be for individuals in their real lives to detach ourselves from their activities. To replace the procedural republic in an ideal world, there would be a balance between conservatism and liberalism. However, the American political system works, by protecting individual rights and encouraging a civil society.