Abstract
This work thoroughly examines Robert Nozick and John Rawls’s justice theories. The study contrasts the two thinkers’ views on distributive justice, individual rights, and the state’s role in social justice. Nozick’s entitlement theory stresses individual liberty and rejects predefined distributive justice. Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness provides a realistic design for a fair society based on liberty, equality, and liberal democracy’s ideals.
Both thinkers value individual rights and liberties, but disagree on distributive justice and the state. Nozick’s entitlement theory stresses self-ownership, whereas Rawls’s justice as fairness is based on liberal democracy’s principles. Nozick thinks the state should protect individual liberty, whereas Rawls thinks it should distribute resources fairly.
The research contends that Rawls’s theory gives a more realistic answer to social and criminal justice issues and a basis for fairness and equality. Nozick’s social and criminal justice paradigm is less realistic than Rawls’s. Rawls’s idea encourages a fair society of free and equal individuals without intellectual, moral, or religious debates. The write-up claims that Rawls’s theory simplifies social and criminal justice issues and creates a fair and equitable society.
Introduction
For many years, political philosophers have argued about whether or not the state should have a role in promoting social fairness. The distinguished philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick have given opposing arguments. Rawls advocates equal distribution of money and resources, whereas Nozick places more value on personal autonomy. The two philosophers consider questions of morality, ethics, fairness, justice, and equality, but their approaches differ. This paper will analyze the perspectives of Rawls and Nozick on the state and its role in ensuring social justice and their consequences.
Robert Nozick Article’s Summary
The article introduces Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice in holdings, which emphasizes the past acquisition and distribution of assets more than the immediate principles of fairness. The study argues that patterned concepts of distributive fairness infringe on individual rights and disregard the importance of donors and beneficiaries in the distribution process (Nozick 54). The research similarly addresses the complications and difficulties of putting the entitlement theory into practice, such as the problem of taxes and property rights. The paper prompts thought on appropriation, its effects, and the limits of ownership.
John Rawls Article’s Summary
John Rawls’s political theory, which views justice as fairness, offers a workable blueprint for a fair society built on the tenets of liberty and equality. Rawls’s paradigm is grounded on a commonly held perspective and is free of contentious philosophical, moral, and theological issues. The central arguments and ideas are Rawls’s two principles of justice, the value of collaboration amongst free and equal individuals, and the significance of reason and justification in political discourse.
Key Points and Main Arguments
Nozick critically analyzes distributive justice based on predetermined behavior patterns and highlights the significance of personal rights and freedoms in any fair system. Concerning ethics, the author outlines that “A complete theory of justice might cover this limit case as well…” (Nozick 56). Accordingly, justice theory should consider all possible scenarios, even if some do not seem square with conventional ideas of distributive fairness. An individual’s rights and liberties are emphasized, and the distribution of benefits should be structured to elicit the cooperation of all parties involved, especially those in weaker positions. This denotes that ethics should consider elements such as the rights and freedoms of individuals and the benefits of working together.
Regarding justice, Nozick’s article argues that the distribution of benefits should be designed to provoke voluntary collaboration among everyone involved. It should entail even the weak and underline the centrality of individual rights and freedoms in any conception of justice. The author gives an example that “The division of advantages should be such as to draw forth the willing cooperation of everyone taking part in it, including those less well situated” (Nozick 86). This implies that justice necessitates an equal distribution of benefits that considers all persons’ needs and rights rather than a fixed distribution scheme that may not be fair or equitable.
Moreover, the concept of individual rights and the minimum state form the basis of Robert Nozick’s argument on morality and fairness. The author gives three examples: first, Nozick claims that the redistribution of money or resources infringes on the right to one’s body and work. He feels taxes are forced labor and that taking someone’s hard-earned money and giving it to someone else is wrong (Nozick 65). His self-ownership concept states that people should be left to do what they want with their bodies and possessions.
Second example, Nozick believes the state should be small and exist exclusively to preserve individual liberties. He argues that promoting social or economic equality via the state violates individual liberties. His theory of the minimum state holds that a nation should only exist to safeguard individual rights and enforce contracts.
According to Nozick, the third example is a violation of people’s rights to coerce them into helping achieve a predetermined goal. He quotes, “End-state and most patterned principles of distributive justice institute (partial) ownership by others of people and their actions and labor…” (Nozick 69). Therefore, from the quote, trying to force a particular distribution of resources on society is immoral since doing so would violate people’s freedom and property.
Nozick argues that moral considerations should not be utilized to assign different distributions of natural resources. Nozick confirms that “Differences between persons in natural assets are morally undeserved…” (111). This symbolizes that morality and fairness can be maintained by doing away with inequitable wealth disparities. To accomplish this, a fair and equitable society that respects and celebrates individual diversity and actively aids the underprivileged must be established. The author explains that Rawls’s theory of justice can be strengthened by accounting for the subjective quality of inalienable natural assets and eliminating morally unjustifiable distinctions.
On the other hand, Rawls likewise addresses issues of morality, fairness, ethics, equity, and justice. The writer contends that justice as fairness is not grounded in a comprehensible ethical or moral philosophy but rather in the commonly held liberal democratic values. This claim is supported by the quote, “Justice as fairness tries to present a conception of political justice rooted in the basic intuitive ideas found in the public culture…” (Rawls 243). In short, the author is communicating that in a democratic society, beliefs about what constitutes justice as fairness predominate over any one ethical or moral system. Fairness, equality, and the protection of personal freedoms are all examples of such beliefs.
Furthermore, Rawls describes morality in two ways: as a political conception and personal identity. John Rawls argues that morality may be interpreted in light of a political idea of justice. He proceeds to mention that the notion of the citizen as a free and equal individual is part of political justice, which applies to social cooperation (Rawls 245). In this context, morality is not a body of ethical ideas but a framework for just and equitable social interaction. Concerning personal identity, a person’s notion of the good has substantial moral aspects, and this conception is an essential part of the person’s nonpublic identity (Rawls 240).
Nevertheless, ‘justice fairness’ defines concepts like fairness and equality. Rawls argues that justice is served when everyone is given the same legal protections and opportunities. He explains, “The first principle requires that citizens’ basic rights and liberties be protected…” (Rawls 226). In this manner, fairness is equitable access to essential rights and freedoms and social and economic growth.
Nonetheless, Rawls records that equity is accomplished by treating people differently depending on their needs and situations. According to the difference principle, the author notes that societal and economic disparities must be structured to prioritize the needs of the most disadvantaged members of society. He quotes, “They must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society” (Rawls 227). In this view, equity is attained when people are given varied levels of support depending on their level of need, to help the most disadvantaged members of society.
Agreements and Disagreements
The two philosophers have opposing perspectives on the concept of distributive justice. According to Nozick, any effort to redistribute resources is an infringement on individual rights (Nozick 65). However, Rawls thinks the state must secure a fair distribution of wealth. Rawls believes social and economic inequalities should primarily aid society’s most disadvantaged citizens.
Similarly, the concept of justice is another difference; Nozick claims entitlement is the foundation of justice. He supports, “If people have X, and their having X (whether or not they deserve to have it…” (120). Conversely, Rawls claims that justice relies on the fairness principle.
Other than the abovementioned differences, they share similarities: Rawls and Nozick agree that the state cannot violate some citizens’ rights. Nozick holds that people have the right to own their property, and no one else has the authority to interfere with that right. Rawls supports that “they own the same property and can make the same claims as before” (241). He adds that everyone has the right to a system that provides them with all the protections they need and the freedoms they deserve.
Conclusion
Generally, both Rawls and Nozick debate the roles of the state and social justice. Rawls’s social issues and criminal justice paradigm are more practical than Nozick’s. Rawls believes that justice is fairness in a constitutional democracy. It tries to obtain public consensus on the essential principles of a fair democratic system.
It is a foundation for educated and voluntary political agreement amongst people perceived as free and equal. Rawls’s practical paradigm promotes society as a fair interaction system between free and equal people. It gives a publicly acknowledged viewpoint from which individuals may assess their political and social institutions. Rawls’s theory makes social and criminal justice challenges more manageable.
Works Cited
Nozick, Robert. “Distributive Justice.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1973, 45-126, Web.
Rawls, John. “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1985, 223-251, Web.