According to Rawls, distributive justice serves to ensure that all is done in a manner that guarantees equality for all; nothing should be done to damage or hurt another person. The principles of the model include that every demographic group should be offered access to the same goods and treatment as all others, where for instance, the poor receive the same healthcare services as the wealthy. Further, the advocates of this model hold that there is a need to change the outlook of our institutions, so as to ensure that they help in improving the lives of the disadvantaged within the community (Lamont, 43). On the other hand, Nozick views that distributive justice would be fair, in the case that it defined three main areas, including the ways that properties not owned by anyone can be acquired; the transfer of goods from one person to the other, and the course of rectifying past injustices – which arose from the violations of acquisition and transfer of goods (Wolff 57). Nozick views that the transfer, acquisition and the rectification of ownership should not necessarily be patterned to anything else. For example, he states that a gift or things acquired by chance can be duly owned and warranted. The distribution of property is fair, as long as it is done according to the rules of acquisition, rectification and transfer. The arguments used by Rawls in supporting his distributive justice include that all goods and liberties should be distributed equally among all people and the opportunities for positions or offices should be advanced in equitable manner (Wolff 57). Thirdly, the more advantaged within the society should contribute towards the betterment of the lives of the disadvantaged. The flaws in Rawls arguments include that he does not regard the entitlement of more goods or opportunities, which may be warranted due to individual traits. Secondly, the arguments do not accommodate for the acquisition of properties that are not claimed by any person, as well as the differences in the views of different people about equitability. Nozick argues that distribution patterns cannot be patterned and can never be representative of all cases requiring the exercise of justice among different individual, which calls for human rationality and differentiated preferences (Wolff 81). Other arguments by Nozik include that the distribution of good within the society arises from the aggregation of decisions about the talents to nurture, the location to live in and what to buy. Unlike in the cases where the model of acquisition or transfer is unjust, according to a theory of justice, the entitlement of property may not be questionable. Some of the ways of acquisition that may be unjust include fraud or stealing. The flaws of Nozick’s model include that the possibility of an unjust central distributor is not ruled out, the injustices of dispersed people are not explored, and the questions about the rights channels of distribution are not explored in details. Further, he refutes the paternalistic nature of the justice system, which can be evidenced through the structures of contracts, rights and the taxation structure. 2. The position that best characterizes Friedman’s position is this: B-“Business and/or corporate decision makers have moral obligations to society in general”. This is the theme behind his arguments; because his libertarian explanation of distributive justice is in favor of an operational free-market where there are
Cite this document
(“Distributive justice, position of John Rawls,Robert Nozick, Milton Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/philosophy/115253-distributive-justice-position-of-john-rawlsrobert
(Distributive Justice, Position of John Rawls,Robert Nozick, Milton Essay)
“Distributive Justice, Position of John Rawls,Robert Nozick, Milton Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/philosophy/115253-distributive-justice-position-of-john-rawlsrobert.
Cited: 0 times
Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Distributive Justice 1. The concept of distributive justice refers to the sets of principles that explain the course of justice, during the distribution of some good or bad amongst different people. It refers to the nature of the allocation of goods within the society, in a socially just way…
It is evident from the study that in order to recover from criticism of his theory, John Rawls constantly develops recasts, revises and expands his theory of justice. His works despite being criticized cannot be discarded since there are no alternative theories provided by Sandel. Rawls will be commemorated for his impartial model of justice as fairness.
This original position is designed in manner to suggest that it is an impartial and fair point of view adopted in the reasoning of a person on the fundamental principles that govern the theory and concept of justice. This paper discuses the concept, content and principles that the original position proposes with a keen interest on the difference principle that Rawls proposes.
Emmanuel Kant considered the categorical imperative wherein one should only engage in actions as long as they could be extended to all members of society. John Rawls, in his Theory of Justice, proposed the idea of the veil of ignorance. The corollary of this approach is that, “.
Rawls's in his book A Theory of Justice has constructed a hypothetical theory which is system based on equality that he calls "Justice as Fairness". Rawls's social theory discusses the role of institutions in a society, which aggravate bitterness creating isolation.
The goal of the Justice System is to try to resolve and satisfy all these issues for the members of society. Injustice can result in disappointment, or rebellion. The different spheres articulate the principles of justice and fairness in their own manner resulting in different kinds and concepts of justice.
However, Rawls in concept of distributive justice goes further in hypothesizing the justice theory under the justice as fairness. The justice as fairness has two principle to drive the following Rawlsian principles of justice the first one is that the liberty principle and the second is the difference principle.
Defend your answer carefully and in detail.
Nozick and Rawls offer differing perspectives about the distribution of primary goods on the basis of natural assets. Nozick upholds individual initiative and abhors interference in the private lives of individuals through
Major developments in modern discourse that unravels distributive justice cannot be exhaustive without a mention of contributions by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Positions held by Rawls and Nozick about distributive justice
It will help the individuals being governed to live in a society that is bound by common laws for the protection and benefit of each individual. Each individual therefore agrees to be bound by commonly-accepted rules and conventions in the society in return for protection from
According to Rawls, the society can only achieve its objectives through the principle of reconciliation, liberty and equity. The main concern about the theory of justice is to account for the issues of justice and generate the best alternative results to people
7 pages (1750 words)Essay
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Distributive justice, position of John Rawls,Robert Nozick, Milton Friedman, James Donaldson(comparing the relationship of state for FREE!