The main agenda of the justice principle is to enhance fairness to society associated by conducts of injustices. The theory of economic injustice explains about the need to mitigate scarcity and altruistic desires affecting communities instead referring to fair choices that repel about societal ignorance by enhancing communal corporation and sorting to alternatives that can easily liberate from vices such as utilitarianism1.
Despite Rawls’ theory of justice remaining popular for centuries, Nozick who drew a publication has brought similar claims that narrow to reconstruct societal injustices by emphasizing that status ultimately brings about bonding in social life. Nozick argues that Rawls theory was an intrinsic attempt to harmonize the situation of fairness amongst individuals who are constrained by factors of economic capitalism2. According to Nozick’s theory, he supports Rawls’ claim that injustice is mainly enhanced by difference in hierarchies where people who are rank least in the system withstand the worst of Marxist capitalism.
While letting their argument to a similar perception, both Robert and Rawls have given clarification concerning societal injustices. Despite the fact that the two philosopher followed different directions while trying to clarify about the meaning of injustices, both arguably agreed that justice is a system where individuals should deliver performances on exactly what they are expected to tackle definite issues. Without indulging comprehensively into other sections of injustice system, Rawls clarifies injustice as a state of unfairness that is mainly attributed to when members of the society deviates from issues that necessitate rightful governing principles. However to achieve justice, the two philosophers have suggested that governing a society can be made better if the social, societal system is incorporated in the governmental structures3.
Nozick’s theory though from distinct origin