The relationship between justice and the good is and has been debated for thousands of years between many intelligent philosophers. Many theorists have attempted to to explain the exact characteristics and outline a moral distribution of possessions. From just after the First World War to present day, liberal perspectives emerged and flourished across a variety of ideological theories and continue to influence political thinking in regards to rights, equality and freedom. With this emergence came two very influential theorists in libertarian political philosophy, Robert Nozick and John Rawls, who take very different approaches to how justice relates to the good. Both Nozick and Rawls argue for liberty above equality, and that there is some degree of equality necessary within a society, however approach it from very different angles.
Rawls investigates the nature of individuals and their relations with justice, while comparing other individuals leading to the overall moral nature (Rawls, 196). Rawls believes society is one that is shaped by peace and conflict of interests, and peace is social cooperation, thereby offering the opportunity for individuals to live a better life than if they had to live alone. Society is shaped by a conflict of interests because everyone would rather have a larger share of property than a smaller one, of which they would achieve alone (Rawls, 196). 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.) Applied Social and Political Philosophy (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994) pp 194 210
Nozick, Robert “Anarchy, State and Utopia” in Ethizabeth Smith and H Gene Blocker (eds) Applied Social and Political Philosophy (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994) pp. 210-19
Skyrms’ explorations in Evolution of the Social Contract are based on the premise that human beings are, in fact, inclined to behave justly. His writings do not aim to prove that individuals act justly all the time; however they assert that the disposition exists in societies. Many would take issue with Skyrms’ assertion. Firstly, justice has many interpretations. According to some, equal division of a resource is not always what justice requires. Skyrms fails to address situations where an individual may have worked harder than another for a resource, and invested more time in it. Perhaps one individual would obtain more utility from a given amount of a resource than another would. Libertarians would demand property rights, and argue that one individual might better utilize the resource than the other, creating more benefit for society. Skyrms also fails to give specific interpretations of justice and does not offer any thoughts on what ideas of justice, if any, are cultural universals.
...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.
Petit, Philip, and Chandran Kukathas. Rawls: A Theory of Justice and its Critics . Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1990.
According to Nozick, “Taxation of earnings from labor is on par with forced labor.” (Anarchy, State, Utopia, 169). Philosophers Robert Nozick and John Rawls take opposing stances on this matter. They illustrate their opinions and reasonings in their theories in order to advocate for their respective arguments. This paper will look to clarify and evaluate Nozick’s argument as well as Rawls’ response to Nozick’s claim that taxation is on par with forced labor. The goal of this paper is, therefore, to discuss both Rawls and Nozick’s theories in order to argue against Nozick’s reasoning and argument.
23. What Kantian problem was Rawls addressing with his theory of justices? What did Rawls offer as an
Justice is seen as a concept that is balanced between law and morality. The laws that support social harmony are considered just. Rawls states that justice is the first virtue of social institutions; this means that a good society is one structured according to principles of justice. The significance of principles of justice is to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of the society and defining the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of the society. According to Rawls, justice is best understood by a grasp of the principles of justice (Rawls, 1971). The principles are expected to represent the moral basis of political government. These principles indicate that humankind needs liberty and freedom so long as they do harm others. Rawls states that justice is significant to human development and prosperity.
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.
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 266.
“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).
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice attempts to establish a fair and reasonable social account of social justice. To do this, he discusses two fundamental principles of justice, which if implemented into society, would guarantee a just and fair way of life. Rawls is mostly concerned with the social good (what is good and just), and his aim with the Theory of Justice is to provide a way that society could be one that is fair and just, while taking into consideration, a person’s primary goods (rights and liberties, opportunities, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect). The usage of these principles will lead to an acceptable basis of self-respect. That saying, if the two principles are fair and just, then the final primary good,
Rousseau and Nozick naturally have two opposite perspectives on property because their political views appearing on different parts of the ideological spectrum. Rousseau has negative and critical views of property in A Discourse on Inequality and Nozick allows for property if it does not violate the entitlement theory. Rousseau beholds property as the commencement of the ills of man. He writes, “to the right of property, the elimination of equality was followed by the most terrible disorder.” Property, an unnatural institution, conceives abundant complications, and natural inequalities begin to merge into moral inequalities. With the conception of early property through labour, issues of domination of the poor by property owners, who are the biologically stronger individuals, arise with the division of land. The rules of justice proceed from the division of land. There is an extreme imbalance between the type of work that one is capable of due to natural inequalities, and “it is thus that natural inequality merges imperceptibly with inequality of ranks” . It is
of the book. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1974. Rawls, John. The. A Theory of Justice.
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.
Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original position and Rawls’ potential response to this.
Can there be justice for all? To answer this question I must first define what justice is. Justice is ?the quality of being just, impartial or fair? in your dealings with others according to Merriam Webster?s Collegiate Dictionary. Keeping that definition in mind, I now must turn to the Voices of Wisdom in order to find an example of a situation in which all parties feel that they are being treated justly. After examining examples such as: Euthanasia, discrimination based on sexual orientation, and equal opportunity offered within the book, it becomes clear to me that there is in fact no possible way for there to be justice for all because everyone?s judgement is in some way or another clouded by their own self interests.