Introduction
Social justice is essential to a person’s life and the state. Primarily, it encompasses the degree of wealth distribution, well-being, and equal opportunities. Today, within the social justice framework, the emphasis is on creating conditions for economic justice and social security programs.
Government institutions associated with social justice include schools, social security, health insurance, taxation, labor law, and market regulation. The primary task of these institutions is to ensure equal opportunities and a fair distribution of benefits. Numerous works have been created on this topic, in which authors analyze and demonstrate various approaches to social justice. Thus, the work aims to analyze and compare the papers Distributive Justice by Robert Nozick and Justice as Fairness: Political, not Metaphysical.
Summary of the Authors’ Arguments
Themes and Concepts
In their works, the authors analyze the concept of social justice, employing different approaches and frames. For example, Nozick claims that one may misunderstand the term distribution justice. This is because many people associate the notion with the idea that a central government is involved in this distribution (Nozick, 1974).
However, an important aspect is that, in fact, no power predicts wealth and income. The degree of allocation depends on the efforts of the persons, between whom the distribution occurs (Nozick, 1974). In other words, one receives a moral right to own wealth depending on the actions that one takes. Some discussions about distribution justice intentionally distort information to mislead people.
Nozick’s Principles of Distributive Justice
Principle of Justice in Acquisition
In addition, Nozick identified three basic principles of ownership in the theory of distributive justice. The first principle is responsible for justice in acquiring or appropriating property one has never owned (Nozick, 1974). Within this point, Nozick adheres to the theory of ownership through work. In other words, if one has done some job of appropriating an object, that object is considered owned. An example would be the carving of a spear from a tree standing in the forest; thus, a person did the work, and one got the property in the form of a spear.
Principle of Justice in Transfer
Thus, the first principle determined the ways of fair appropriation of what was not in possession before. Accordingly, the second principle determines the methods for the appropriate allocation of an object previously in the possession of another person (Nozick, 1974). In other words, this principle determines under what conditions the transfer of an object from one person to another is considered fair.
In this regard, Nozick upholds the principle that the transfer of an object occurred solely in good faith. Thus, this principle serves the norms of behavior in society and respect for human rights. Moreover, by following this principle, the rule of utilizing one’s personal talents is fulfilled, and labor is distributed appropriately.
Principle of Rectification of Injustice
The third principle involves correcting the situation during distribution in the event of mistakes. In other words, one must try to neutralize or prevent the consequences of unfair distribution. Thus, according to Nozick, anyone who received an object by adhering to these three principles received the thing honestly, and no one had any reason to complain (Nozick, 1974).
However, although the theory of fair distribution is based on a historical approach, there is a barrier to its full implementation today. It is formulated by the fact that there is no definite template according to which this theory could be carried out. In essence, it is noticeable that those who work diligently often have less than those who are lazy, just as dishonest individuals sometimes possess more than honest ones.
Rawls’s Principle of Tolerance and Justice as Fairness
An alternative view of justice discusses similar principles but takes a different approach. In “Justice as Fairness,” the author argues that the paper’s main ideas do not depend on certain philosophical concepts, such as universal truth or the essence of nature (Rawls, 1985). Moreover, Rawls discusses the main goals of political philosophy and how the theory of justice as fairness is intertwined with philosophical concepts.
Furthermore, the author means that when interacting, the basic intuitive ideas of justice are combined into a political conception of justice. The central idea is that the foundation of constitutional democracy should not depend on certain things. These notions include some moral norms, particularly philosophical and religious doctrines. In other words, democracy should not be limited by certain boundaries prescribed in these doctrines.
More precisely, Rawls emphasizes that the principle of tolerance for philosophy must be applied to formulate this concept. This model incorporates the principle that public opinion regarding justice should be political, rather than metaphysical (Rawls, 1985). As one may notice, it is where the name of the chosen work comes from, which once again focuses on the main idea.
Moreover, it turns out that to build a true democracy, one should seek a concept of justice in a democratic society. In other words, this concept implies using principles of understanding justice based on political notions, rather than metaphysical ones. It is precisely this meaning that, according to the author’s idea, the model of justice based on honesty is rooted in a political approach.
Explanation of the Authors’ Disagreements
Difference in Theoretical Scope and Openness to Contextual Application
One of the differences between these works is the degree of completeness and openness to further research on this topic. For example, Rawls’ work involves more than developing a model by which the principles of constitutional democracy should be defined. It also raises the question of the scope within which one should consider the principle of fairness as honesty, namely, whether one can apply the principles of the model in different historical, social, political, and other conditions. This problem is relevant because it is known that different conditions give rise to various concepts among the population and moral standards. In such cases, some of the points of the model of justice as fairness may not be applicable under certain conditions.
Similarity in the Search for a Universal Concept of Justice
The similarity between the authors’ views lies primarily in their shared approach to solving a particular problem. Thus, both works try to find a universal concept of justice while applying different approaches. Additionally, the authors follow a common analytical path when considering justice and its fundamental principles. In other words, one might notice that in the works, fairness is based on fair distribution, taking into account environmental factors. Although Rawls cannot claim that the justice model of fairness can be used in any historical or social setting, the notion of justice itself is universal.
Difference in Practical Applicability to Social Problems and Criminal Justice
Speaking about which of the authors provided a more workable model for practical application to social problems and criminal justice, in my opinion, the model of distributive justice is closer. It is due to the peculiarities of the subjects of consideration, namely, social problems and criminal justice. In other words, to solve problems in this area, it is necessary to operate with clear and precise aspects.
This is precisely what the Nozick model includes: the three rules for a fair distribution. In a confrontation, it is often easy to see who is right and wrong, as clearly defined boundaries exist. These rules are based on the fairness of the division; moreover, they are interconnected.
Comparative Flexibility of Nozick’s Model in Global and Individual Contexts
Additionally, the specific application of Nozick’s theory also clarifies why it is more suitable for practical applications in criminal justice and social issues. This is evident in the fact that the author’s model can be applied both in a global context and in the context of an individual. In other words, the theory can be taken as the basis for building a global constitutional democracy.
However, models can also be used to solve any individual case. For example, these cases can serve as situations when an employee’s salary should be assessed as fair or not. In this case, it is necessary to apply the principles of equitable division and consider a colleague’s work from the perspective of these models.
Conclusion
Thus, two works analyzing the concept of justice were considered. Despite the similar basic principle of considering the concept of justice as a manifestation of honesty, different approaches have been used. Thus, Nozick focused on the three main principles of fair distribution.
Moreover, the author argued that there is a barrier to fully implementing these three principles today. It is because sometimes there is an injustice in the form of the fact that people who work hard have less than those who are lazy. Ultimately, Nozick’s model appears to be more suitable for addressing issues in criminal and social justice.
References
Nozick, R. (1973). Distributive Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 3(1), 44-126.
Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 14(3), 223-251.