Similarities Between Nozick And John Rawls

Decent Essays
Many philosophical scholars believe that justice, liberty, law, and equality are an important aspect among the commonwealth of the nation. Moreover, this paper will focus on the two important political philosophers that argue with the notion and importance of equality and justice in the western society. These philosophers include: Robert Nozick and John Rawls. John Rawls claims that equality and justice is derived from an equal distribution of opportunities, income, wealth, for the general social advantage of the citizen, which includes welfare. Whereas, Robert Nozick defines equality and justice as an entailment to oneself. This concept implies that no one has the right to steal an individual wealth or property, even though the person is wealthier

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Chapter 7 of Anarchy, State, and Utopia begins with introducing a theory of distributive justice called “the entitlement theory”. In a just world, one is entitled to one’s holdings if the holdings are either the original acquisition or there is a transfer of holdings. No one is entitled to their holdings other than by those two principles. However, because we do not live in a just world, Nozick incorporates a third principle: the rectification of injustice.…

    • 364 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Consequently, the Marxist solution for distributive justice is the abolition of private property. Wei then analyzes the writing of Rawls and Nozick to show that their positions are actually similar. Nozick and Rawls both agree that private ownership is a natural result of the Marxist principle of “reward according to effort and ability.” The difference between Rawls and Nozick is that Rawls seeks to improve Marx principle of justice by having it operate through “justice as fairness.”…

    • 1317 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Critically review the arguments of Florini and Nussbaum: Nussbaum (2001) explains that the social contract theory dominates the western political philosophy and this theory considers the principles of justice as the result of contract, the people make. People make this contract for mutual benefit and live according to the rule of law.. Her main focus is on John Rawls ' work on contractual theory. Nussbaum admits that such theories have some strength in terms of global justice but these theories suffer from some structural defects and can produce imperfect results. According to John Rawl(1971), if resources are scarce and all the contractors or parties involved are equal in power, they are bound to cooperate to achieve their respective goals.…

    • 1682 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Justice is a universal part of everyday life. We often think of it as an if-then scenario; if you cause trouble in school, then you don’t get recess. If you steal from somebody, then you go to jail. But the idea of justice is much more complex than that. Justice is an intricate ethical system with implications that range from the fair treatment of everyone to the equal distribution of government resources.…

    • 607 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Wealth inequality in today's society also known as the wealth gap, is growing. The top one percent makes twenty-five times more than the average family (Close 2016). This glaring inequality frequently brings up the question of what ought to be done with the distribution of wealth and resources. American Political Philosopher, John Rawls’, bases his argument on the premise that there should be an equal distribution of wealth in society. Robert Nozick, one of Rawls' main critics, demonstrates how distributive justice and an equal distribution of wealth conflicts with a person's individual liberty.…

    • 715 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Universal Health Care

    • 1019 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Robert Nozick opposes Rawl’s view on the theory of justice by arguing that health care is not a right. His perspective states that people tend to seek medical treatment for more and more reasons when health care is seen as a right as opposed to a…

    • 1019 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Robert Nozick Entitlement

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Robert Nozick’s “Entitlement Theory of Distributive Justice” can be expressed by three main golden rules such as “The Principle of Justice in Acquisition,” “The Principle of Justice in Transfer”,and 'The Principle of Justice in Rectification”. The Principle of Justice in Acquisition is a principle that believes you the person can designate to unowned belongings that you mash up with the labor you do, as long as you don't make the general public worse by doing so. The Principle of Justice in Transfer is an additional principle to Robert Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of Distributive Justice that places its confidence in a belief that allows people to transfer their entitlement to his or her property, or labor to a different person or parties…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Rawls and Nozick: Justice as a Fair Inequality or Entitled Right? Distributive justice is the economic framework within a society which determines the distribution of goods amongst its members. How goods should be distributed and to whom have been interpreted by John Rawls and Robert Nozick, two contemporary philosophers that share the belief that there is no practical form of equal distribution of goods within society, but disagree on what constitutes a true distributive justice when taking that into consideration. The philosophers’ interpretations of distributive justice are influenced by their respective beliefs – Rawls’ principles of justice are egalitarian in nature, while Nozick’s entitlement theory is strong in its libertarian sentiments.…

    • 1178 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This essay will elaborate on why our government should be a welfare state. A role of the government should include protecting those who have the least advantage in society. On the other hand, John Rawls’ criticizes the welfare state. The intuitive general conception of justice argument is proposed by Rawls which promotes equal division of social primary goods, such as power or wealth, among people unless the unequal portion is beneficial to the marginalized. Rawls’ discusses the concept of fair equality of opportunities and how an individual’s circumstances shouldn’t have an effect on the social positions available to him or her.…

    • 691 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Using the first principle of justice, the laws that are based off the “general will” will always promote the security and freedom of individuals intact. Due to the emphasis on promoting freedom and equality, the ideal society would fall under Rawls’ determination of fairness under the first principle of justice. Rawls puts an emphasis on equal liberties and Rousseau’s society is focused on equality of all individuals. In that society, individuals have social liberties similar to those Rawls emphasizes. “The social compact creates an equality among the citizens so that they all commit to the same conditions and should all have the same rights.”…

    • 1251 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In this essay I am going to explore the libertarian standpoint on justice, and consider the objections to such a rights based view of justice. Furthermore, I am going to examine how a just libertarian society would function, and consider the value of justice in comparison to the political virtues of liberty, and equality. Libertarianism promotes justice in two ways; it ponders the moral duties we have to others, but also the moral constitutional duties we have. At the crux of libertarian ideology is the belief that humans, as autonomous beings, have self-ownership, and a right to individual liberty. This motivates libertarians to believe that a minimal state is preferable to the present type of government, but also affirm that…

    • 1479 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” and Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” both strive to answer these questions but their perspectives are quite different. In this paper, I will analyze both the views of Rawls and Nozick and challenge Nozick’s theory. John Rawl presents the idea of justice in a social institution by comparing…

    • 928 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    John Rawls and Karl Marx both see equality as an important value in human society; indeed, they both see it as something people are entitled to and as the foundation upon which the ideal society is built. However, they diverge drastically in how they conceptualize the way an egalitarian society would operate and how they believe such a society could be achieved. Concerning the former, Marx envisioned a communist utopia, whereas Rawls was a strong believer in liberal democracy. In terms of the latter, Marx was a staunch believer in proletarian revolution, while Rawls believed in perfecting the existing system through democratic reforms. Their contrasting visions stem partly from the different periods in which they wrote.…

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    (Sandel pg. 261) Equality and liberty are something that we see as the same things. Equality of outcome is the idea that everyone should have the same level of income and place in society. There should be no classes. (Friedman’s pg. 129)…

    • 1287 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Rawls holds the belief that people are allowed to keep all they acquire fairly, up to a certain point. That it can not be acquired if it “jeopardizes fair opportunity”, and an individual cannot “enjoy having more than others unless it....benefits the worst off group”12 This is compared to Nozick who holds steadfast in his belief that individuals are entitled to all they have acquired fairly, and that for the state to interfere would be to deny that they themselves are an individual with rights. This absolute ideology is discussed in detail by Michael J. Sandel in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice13, where he expresses that Nozick does not explain his beliefs on possession entirely, saying “Nozick is prepared to accept that people may not deserve their natural assets, but claims they are entitled to them nonetheless”, but does not show why this is so. 14 Sandels point displays a problem with Nozicks priority on the rights to property and his absolutism. The issue is that he does not advocate for what could be a functional society, in which a fair redistribution of all rewards and resources is required, for example in the communitarian sense.…

    • 1849 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays