Nozick and Rawls
Which is the most appealing Nozick’s entitlement theory or Rawls theory of distributive justice?
The defence of liberal ideologies emerged not long after the Second World War, prior to this there had been little faith in liberal values during the 1920’s and 1930’s, however after the war there appeared to be a renewed defence for liberal thinking ranging across a variety of ideological theories. To the present day these liberal perspectives continue to influence political thinking with regards to rights, equality and freedom. This rapid revival of liberal ideologies highlights the diverse and contradictory parts associated with liberal ideas and so we are left with two very influential theorists in liberal political philosophy yet with very conflicting theories. These theorists are famously known as Robert Nozick and John Rawls.
There are a number of diverse views on economic or distributive justice, some claim that goods should be distributed equally or shared based on a principle of need that is to say who needs these goods more. Other views claim goods should be distributed according to labour, merit, and effort which determine who is entitled to them. John Rawls argues that the economy should be designed in such a way that those ‘worse off’ in society should benefit as much as possible, so inequalities would exist but everyone in society benefits from this. Rawl’s therefore approves of more state involvement as this would mean distributing resources by means such as taxation to those in society who justly deserve to receive them. Nozick argues however, that Rawl’s description is not neutral by this he means to discuss distributive justice presumes that resources are readily available in society ready to be justly distributed by the state however realistically in society there are individuals and associations of these individuals in the natural world and what these individuals produce, therefore one should not treat the production of goods and how they are
The defence of liberal ideologies emerged not long after the Second World War, prior to this there had been little faith in liberal values during the 1920’s and 1930’s, however after the war there appeared to be a renewed defence for liberal thinking ranging across a variety of ideological theories. To the present day these liberal perspectives continue to influence political thinking with regards to rights, equality and freedom. This rapid revival of liberal ideologies highlights the diverse and contradictory parts associated with liberal ideas and so we are left with two very influential theorists in liberal political philosophy yet with very conflicting theories. These theorists are famously known as Robert Nozick and John Rawls.
There are a number of diverse views on economic or distributive justice, some claim that goods should be distributed equally or shared based on a principle of need that is to say who needs these goods more. Other views claim goods should be distributed according to labour, merit, and effort which determine who is entitled to them. John Rawls argues that the economy should be designed in such a way that those ‘worse off’ in society should benefit as much as possible, so inequalities would exist but everyone in society benefits from this. Rawl’s therefore approves of more state involvement as this would mean distributing resources by means such as taxation to those in society who justly deserve to receive them. Nozick argues however, that Rawl’s description is not neutral by this he means to discuss distributive justice presumes that resources are readily available in society ready to be justly distributed by the state however realistically in society there are individuals and associations of these individuals in the natural world and what these individuals produce, therefore one should not treat the production of goods and how they are
Bibliography: Brace, L. The politic of Property: labour, freedom and belonging UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2004 Farrelly,C.P Kymlicka, W. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction UK: Oxford University Press, 2002 Nozick, R Nozick, R., “Distributive Justice” in Goodin, E., Pettit, P., eds., Contemporary Political Philosophy Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1997 Parekh, B., Contemporary Political Thinkers Oxford: Martin Robertson & Company Ltd, 1982 Perry, S. “Libertarianism, Entitlement and Responsibility” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 26 (1997) 351-396 Plant, R Rawls, J. A theory of Justice: revised edition USA: Harvard University Press, 1999 Rawls, J., “Justice as Fairness” in Goodin, E., Pettit, P., eds., Contemporary Political Philosophy Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1997 Rawls, J. Political Liberalism New York: Columbia University Press, 2005 1997 Schumaker, P. The Political Theory Reader UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2010 Wolff, J [ 1 ]. Plant, R. Modern Political Thought UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1991 p124 [ 2 ] [ 3 ]. Nozick, R., “Distributive Justice” in Goodin, E., Pettit, P., eds., Contemporary Political Philosophy Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1997 p203 [ 4 ] [ 5 ]. Rawls, J. Political Liberalism New York: Columbia University Press, 2005 p291 [ 6 ] [ 7 ]. Rawls, J., “Justice as Fairness” in Goodin, E., Pettit, P., eds., Contemporary Political Philosophy Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1997 ch 13 [ 8 ] [ 9 ]. Rawls, J. Political Liberalism New York: Columbia University Press, 2005 p23 [ 10 ] [ 11 ]. Nozick, J. Anarchy, State and Utopia UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1974 ch7 [ 12 ] [ 13 ]. Wolff, J. Property, Justice and the Minimal State UK:Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1991 p9 [ 14 ] [ 15 ]. Nozick, R. Anarchy, State and Utopia UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1974 p155 [ 16 ] [ 17 ]. Wolff, J. Property, Justice and the Minimal State UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1991 p9 [ 18 ] [ 19 ]. Perry, S. “Libertarianism, Entitlement and Responsibility” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 26 (1997) 351-396 (p358-359) [ 20 ] [ 21 ]. Farrelly,C.P. Contemporary Political Thought: a reader UK: Sage Publications Ltd, 2004 p83 [ 22 ] [ 23 ]. Rawls, J. A theory of Justice: revised edition USA: Harvard University Press, 1999 p236