Rawls and Nozick's Theories of Justice - Essay Example

? Compare and assess Rawls and Nozick's theories of justice. Compare and assess Rawls and Nozick's theories of justice. John Rawls (born in 1921) and Robert Nozick (1938) had been the two most influential and prominent late twentieth century’s political philosophers. Both these philosophers presented their ideology on the political system which holds relevance and importance in the world today. John Rawls Theory of Justice John Rawls political philosophy was presented in 1971 as his work “A Theory of Justice”. The main idea behind this philosophical work led to the shaping up of the modern social democratic and liberal concepts under social justice. By using social contract as a device he formulated his theory on ethical basis which has been quite opposing to the concepts of utilitarianism. He further provided justification about the concept of re-distribution of wealth based upon the individualist assumptions. This philosophical work of Rawls has been quite inspirational for both the social democratic and the liberals. He also presented his theory on “justice as fairness” that highlighted two core principles i.e. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others (this principle reflects a traditional liberal commitment to formal equality) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged; and (B) attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (this so-called 'difference principle) points towards a significant measure of social inequality According to the Rawls theory the material inequalities can only be justified when they are used to be of advantage to those who are least well-off. This theory of Rawls is well-matched to the concept of a market economy whereby the re-distribution of wealth is done in terms of tax and welfare systems that ultimately leads to disincentive to firms and ultimately turns out disadvantageous for the least well-off. The egalitarianism of Rawls is based on the social contract theory however there is also some contradiction as he starts with a very liberal assumption about humans and then gives very broad conclusion in terms of egalitarianism considering distribution of wealth as fair by the people(hawk n.d.). Robert NozicksTheory of Anarchy, State and Utopia The major philosophical work presented by Robert Nozick was in 1974 as “Anarchy, State and Utopia” in which he presented a libertarianism point of view. According to this theory he rejects the belief of those having welfare views in terms of modern liberalism however he endorsed the concept of minimal state. Nozick placed his view of justice and equality upon the idea of entitlements and rights. This ideology is somewhat reflective of the notion of distributive thought presented by Aristotle and Plato in which they suggested that the material benefits should correspond to the worth of an individual. According the views presented on rights it is believed that the inequality in material is justifiable in this way that the talent and willingness of a person to work are unequally distributed. The basis of Nozicks work is to distinguish between the historical principles of justice and the end-state principles. According to his view the needs of individuals and social equality are unjustifiable in relation to rewards. He gave the principles through which it can be found whether the distribution of wealth is just, these principles are as: 1. Wealth has to be justly acquired in the first place, that is, it should not have been stolen and the rights of others should not have been infringed 2. Wealth has to be justly transferred from one responsible person to another 3. If wealth has been acquired or transferred unjustly this injustice should be rectified According to these principles Nozick justifies that the inequality in distribution of wealth and also in rewards can be identified. He rejects the idea that redistribution of wealth could be done based on morals and be treated as equality or social justice. He views that the distribution of wealth to the least well-off could be done through charity rather than through moral obligations (hawk n.d.) Comparison of Both theories Both the theories presented by these political philosophers provided varying views on the concept of justice, equality and distribution of wealth. The theory presented by Rawls was liberalistic and has been adopted by many governments specially the welfare states. In these states the wealth was redistributed to the least privileged so that they can achieve some standard of living. Subsequently Rawls theory of justice became the basis for many political policies. However, the views presented by Nozick were quite contrary as he claimed that this activity of government that forces the rich people by heavy taxing to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate violates the freedom and liberty of the rich people. He further argued that Government has no such right to violate the rights of individuals and thus advocated the ideology of minimal state whereby the law and order must be maintained but there shouldn’t be anything like redistribution of wealth (Brown 2003). Also as Nozick classified his theory of justice on end-result and historical comparison and as being patterned or un-patterned, in this respect the entitlement theory is considered to be both historical and un-patterned. However it does not advocate the distribution of wealth by means of acquisitions and transfers as being patterned. This distribution can only be considered patterned if it comes in accordance to the rules of transfer or acquisition. In contrast, the theory of Rawls’s is end-result theory which has no bases or calculations for principles or rules making it a rather wrong approach(Kilcullen 1996). The theory formulation by both the philosophers is carried out in a systematic way whereby Rawls started out with a situation leading to a process of deliberation and reaching to results which he called the rules of justice. Similarly Nozicks carried out a process and stated that distribution results as just. Thus, showing that each theory started as a process leading to transformation and then accepted the outcomes achieved as results. The argument by Nozick is that the pattern theory as presented by Rawls is unjust in terms that liberty is a part of ownership and giving ones thing to others as distribution of wealth changes this pattern thus making it unjust. Also the entitlement theory does not take into account the mal-distribution and also alter possession concept. Apart from this the entitlement theory tends to define the pattern of distribution based upon some merit or need however in the Nozick’s theory the materials are not collected as a total thus there is no allocation by the central authority. The assumption that the differences between individuals are illogical unless there is some justification provided. Nozick’s theory argues that a distributor might treat everyone alike but in a free society the exchanges or distribution should be by the individuals to those whom they wish rather than being with the state as prescribed by Rawls theory. Here Rawls argues that rules can be unfair in distribution and thus natural talents must be concealed. On the contrary Nozick points out that the assessment of an individual as being a deserving person cannot be based upon his usage of material whether being natural talents(Kilcullen 1996). The theories also hold differing views on equality i.e. in Rawls theory the distribution of wealth should be done to the less fortunate whereby Nozick states that the possession of people which are under their entitlements cannot be violated or seized by any authority to provide equality or equal distribution to others. Individuals can engage in exchanges themselves where they can provide opportunities the way they wish, which does not come under the process of social cooperation. It is often viewed by the people that the wealth is unequally distributed and they tend to start thinking of the ways in which it can be made equal. However according to the entitlement theory this decision of redistribution cannot be made by just looking at the existing patterns of distribution. Nozick argues that imposing taxation can be viewed as a concept of forced labor i.e. it is unjust to take the proportion of someone’s earnings and forcing the individual to work for the proportion of his time for some other purpose. Hence it is unjust to make a person work for someone else’s benefit. This ideology tends to portray that every individual has the liberty to do whatever they wish to and how ever they want in accordance to the rules and thus they have the right to take all the advantage of the benefits achieved from their actions. However by bringing the concept of social welfare programs and imposing taxation is like taking away the benefits from the people and giving their ownership to others. This is unjust to those people as the poor claim the right on their products even if they have not engaged in a social relationship or an exchange(Brown 2003). The distribution of wealth according to the view of Nozick seems unjust because his interpretation of the patterned principle is as distribution in its absolute terms i.e. absolute entitlements to the distribution of property or wealth. However this absolute entitlement is not what is actually distributed in the egalitarian system because the possessions are qualified based upon the entitlements that are established in the system and accordingly the taxes and other such conditions are applied to the pattern of distribution. There is also room for choice, social cooperation and exchange of property that is compatible with the system (Kilcullen 1996). In view of Nozick’s point of view it can be argued that this does not give the individuals the right to do whatever they wish to with their property. As Nozick views that the transfer of any property or material if done with free consent is just. However it can be argued that the rules that are established to make this transfer must be in accordance with political systems not merely on the factor of liberty. Thus these rules that are currently in place like taxation system, inheritance, exchange and transfer of materials balance the patterns relating to work, political systems and family. In addition if it is agreed that Nozick’s view is right that property is important for liberty thus buying thing ideology it must be ensured that every individual has access to and availability of sufficient property in order to enjoy freedom and liberty. Thus this redistribution of materials from rich to the less advantaged would then be seen as an equal distribution of liberty, but this concept would be a patterned justice principle. Also if history is viewed the initial acquisitions of property and materials were based on stealth, theft, slavery and exploitation. All these acquisitions were unequal and unjust and from this it can be derived that no person has the right to transfer such property that they have stolen neither does the new owner by any means can receive. However these unfair acquisitions can now be rectified by establishing system. Therefore in order to follow Nozick theory it has to be made possible to start a just beginning. In order to have a just beginning the system needs to be established that is not sensitive to the injustices that have taken place in the past and must be corrected. In regards to this Nozick’s theory stands weak(Lacewing n.d.). These views presented by both the philosophers have become the basis for the opposing political parties whereby the democrats advocate Rawls theory of redistribution of wealth while the Republicans advocate Nozick’s theory of minimal state. However when the comparison is made between both the theories of justice it can be concluded that Rawls is in the favor of distributive justice however Nozick completely rejects this ideology. The argument presented by Nozick advocates the rights of individuals whereas Rawls advocates the concept of social obligation. Also, Nozick commends and endorses the minimal state whereas Rawls tends to defend the liberalistic welfare that distributes the goods in a manner that it provides benefits to the least advantaged (Bakaya 2006). Works Cited Bakaya, Santosh. The Political Theory of Robert Nozick. Delhi: Kalpaz Publications, 2006. Brown, Lachlan. "Rawls-v-Nozick: Liberty for all, or just the rich?" The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 09, 2003: 1. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Robert Nozick. 02 29, 2012. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421354/Robert-Nozick. hawk, Democratic. Theory of justice: Rawls or Nozick. Atlas Forum, n.d. Kilcullen, John. ROBERT NOZICK: AGAINST DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE. Modern Political Theory, Macquarie University, 1996. Lacewing, Michael. "Rawls and Nozick on justice." Routledge Taylor and Francis group, n.d.: 1-5. Read More