Rawls Theory Of Justice Analysis
A specific philosopher whom critiqued Rawls theory of Justice was Robert Nozick. Nozick’s conception of justice was entirely different to Rawls. In his essay, Anarchy, State and Utopia, the opening reads, “Individuals have rights and there are things no person or group may do to them without violating their rights”. Nozick’s theory of justice was known as the ‘entitlement theory’. This essentially meant that according to this theory of entitlement, “economic goods arise already encumbered with rightful claims”. Nozick in his theory is largely concerned with the distribution of property.
Under Nozick’s theory the state has the authority to prohibit the use of fraud and force, enforce contracts and protect property. Nozick does not believe in the redistribution of wealth by the state, or any sort of redistribution of property in order to create an equal state. Nozick states that “resources should be distributed by the operation of a free market: the resulting distribution is just if it results from a series of voluntary transfers of legitimate entitlements”. Nozick, similar to Rawls asks created a type of experiment within their theory, Nozick asked us to imagine individuals in a state of nature with natural rights, who generally do what they are morally to do and act in their own …show more content…
There is little that separates their concept of justice and their view of the human subject as more true to the Kantian assumption. However, it is respectfully submitted that Rawls principle, founded on the basis of equality and fairness are most true. Kant believes that the individual should not be used as a means to an end; it is argued that through the creation of the ‘original position’ and ‘veil of ignorance’ Rawls has ensured there is no manipulation of people to reach particular goals or ends, directly mirroring the maxim within Kantian theory. While Nozick is Kant like in many of his principles, it is argued that the reliance on the historical element to his concept of justice does not give rise to the truest Kantian assumptions. Rawls ‘original position’ creates a level playing field for society, history of a persons ancestors or background will have no bearing in an individual’s future, meaning a fairer