Rawl's and Chamberlain argument

Pages 4 (1004 words)
Download 0
Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Subject: Philosophy Date: April 8, 2012 Topic: Essay Introduction Rawls’s argument for the different principle from the original position and Nozick’s ‘Wilt Chamberlain argument seem to differ from the logical stand point but taking into consideration the grassroots realities prevailing in the society and the requirement of remedial measures, the difference amongst the two philosophers is marginal and one related to the approach.


1) Explain Rawls's argument for the difference principle from the original position The differences in the political philosophies of John Rawls and Robert Nozick mostly relate to variance in their initial assumptions and system of argument. According to the different principle, it allows inequalities in the distribution of goods subject to those inequalities stand to the advantage of the worst-off members of the society. He is convinced about the rationality of this principle and tenders the following reasons for his stand: The right of each citizen on the total goods available with the society is equal. This goes to prove that he must have equal share in the material wealth of the society. What is the justification for unequal distribution? His argument is simple and straightforward. If the distribution system works to the advantage of the worst-off section of the society, that arrangement is fair enough. Rawls explains his strategy of setting up the original position through risk-minimisation. Elaborating this Dr. Jan Garrette argues, “The Difference Principle has elements of other familiar ethical theories. ...
Download paper
Not exactly what you need?