Robert Nozick and John Rawls
Robert Nozick on John Rawls’ Theory of Justice
FEBRUARY 2, 2010 by Gabriel Hendin
John Rawls’ “original position” is a hypothetical situation in which rational parties make social decisions under a veil of ignorance, so as to prevent attributing advantages to one party over another. Rawls’ difference principle states that inequalities among humans are to be redistributed equally to benefit all. Robert Nozick disagrees with John Rawls’s “original position” and “difference principle.” Nozick believes that historical principles are required in certain moral situations and notes that their existence is impossible if individuals deal under Rawls’s “veil of ignorance.” With regards to the difference principle, Nozick argues that the rich may not wish to fully cooperate with the poor in redistributing wealth, for their natural endowments break no laws. He also states that Rawls’ difference principle is morally arbitrary in the notion of the rich wanting to help the poor.
I agree with Nozick’s opposition to the original position. How could the original position always stand? If a state were to redistribute wealth, thus making a moral decision under the original position, how could the state assess each individual’s wealth and decide how to redistribute the wealth without lifting the veil and assessing each person’s social status? Similar decisions require a historical frame of reference.
I disagree with Nozick’s assessment of the difference principle, for I assume that Rawls intended that this principle act only in assumedly moral societies, in which the rich would care for the poor and want to help alleviate their poverty and natural misfortune. I do not think Rawls was being morally arbitrary in assuming that in a moral society, the rich would cooperate to help the poor, instead of the poor succumbing to their inferior position. On the contrary, I think Rawls was correct in hypothetically assuming the moral, wealthier man’s decision.
A large portion of
FEBRUARY 2, 2010 by Gabriel Hendin
John Rawls’ “original position” is a hypothetical situation in which rational parties make social decisions under a veil of ignorance, so as to prevent attributing advantages to one party over another. Rawls’ difference principle states that inequalities among humans are to be redistributed equally to benefit all. Robert Nozick disagrees with John Rawls’s “original position” and “difference principle.” Nozick believes that historical principles are required in certain moral situations and notes that their existence is impossible if individuals deal under Rawls’s “veil of ignorance.” With regards to the difference principle, Nozick argues that the rich may not wish to fully cooperate with the poor in redistributing wealth, for their natural endowments break no laws. He also states that Rawls’ difference principle is morally arbitrary in the notion of the rich wanting to help the poor.
I agree with Nozick’s opposition to the original position. How could the original position always stand? If a state were to redistribute wealth, thus making a moral decision under the original position, how could the state assess each individual’s wealth and decide how to redistribute the wealth without lifting the veil and assessing each person’s social status? Similar decisions require a historical frame of reference.
I disagree with Nozick’s assessment of the difference principle, for I assume that Rawls intended that this principle act only in assumedly moral societies, in which the rich would care for the poor and want to help alleviate their poverty and natural misfortune. I do not think Rawls was being morally arbitrary in assuming that in a moral society, the rich would cooperate to help the poor, instead of the poor succumbing to their inferior position. On the contrary, I think Rawls was correct in hypothetically assuming the moral, wealthier man’s decision.
A large portion of