John Rawls's Views Of John Rawls And Robert Nozick

John Rawls and Robert Nozick, in their writings, present their unique views on the conceived notion of a society and principles of social justice. Although their views are similar in some ways, they are also distinctly different. This difference is made clear as Rawls focuses on a scheme of basic rights, stressing a cooperative effort in society while Nozick focuses more on the individual’s right to property. In this paper I will explain both Rawls’s and Nozick’s conceptions of society and principles of social justice. I will argue on the side of Rawls’s and explain how Rawls’s view is both the more favorable and more ideal conception of society and social justice despite the objection to Rawls’s view given by Nozick. Before it is possible

Rawls describes an original position for this social agreement where people would go to form and decide on principles of justice by which to live and form a society. The original position is essentially a pre-societal state, but not a historical one (Rawls, 11). This original position is unique in that it is a purely hypothetical situation (Rawls, 11). Rawls created this hypothetical situation purely for providing a realm where his conception of justice could be formed and deliberated among the people he perceived to be in the original position. First and foremost it is a place of equality (Rawls, 10). The people in the original position choose their principles of justice from behind what Rawls refers to as the veil of ignorance (Rawls, 10). The veil of ignorance creates a state of equality by ensuring that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choosing of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances (Rawls, 11). What this means, according to Rawls, is that no one knows his or her place in society, his or her class position, his or her fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his or her intelligence, strength, nor even his or her conception of the good (only that they have a conception of the good), or psychological propensities (Rawls, 11). This lack of knowledge behind the veil of ignorance ensures everyone

In having an organized society the people are able to best fulfill their interests. The fundamental difference between Nozick’s and Rawls’s societies, however, is that Nozick does not seem to support a central distribution system, a system by which a person or group is entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how those resources are to be doled out. He instead supports a system where what each person gets, he gets from others who give to him in exchange for something, or as a gift (Nozick, 149). It is a free society where persons control different resources, and new holdings arise out of the voluntary exchanges and actions of persons (Nozick, 150). A holding, in this case, is a word coined by Nozick to refer to an individual’s property (Nozick, 150). This is in contrast to the goods referred to by Rawls. According to Nozick’s presented description of his conception, a society is based around holdings. This carries the implication of a society based around private property and not necessarily rights and the distribution of goods like in Rawls’s society. The society that Nozick presents is that of the minimal state, which he says is the most extensive state that can be justified (Nozick, 149). Any state more extensive violates people’s rights (Nozick, 149). In this case, I believe