Views on social justice are highly important in defining the roles of the state within society. The perspectives presented by John Rawls and Robert Nozick demonstrate two extremely different views of societal justice. Each of these philosophers give their own principles of justice, which are sets of rules society must follow in order to be just. In this paper, I will analyze the views of each of these thinkers. I will also argue that the Rawls’ principles of justice are preferable to Nozick’s due to Nozick’s lack of focus on societal inequalities.
To understand Rawls’ principles of societal justice, it is important to first define exactly what a society is. Rawls argues that society is a group of people who cooperate and follow the same rules …show more content…
This would be agreed to from the original position because someone who is unaware of any features of their life would want to be given equal rights for all situations they could be born into. The second principle, the difference principle, is more complex. Rawls argues that because all members of a society cooperate to gain advantages for the society as a whole, those in the original position would not find it fair for some members of society to struggle so that more fortunate members may prosper. Instead however, the advances of those well off in society should lead to improvements in the lives of all members of society, since all members of society have to cooperate to make the advancements possible. This logic leads to the second principle which states that social or economic inequalities within society are justifiable only when they create benefits for all members of society, specifically those who are disadvantaged. For example, consider a communistic society where all people within it are impoverished, compared to a moderate society where there are some rich members and some poor members. If the moderate society is wealthier than the communistic society, the “poor” members of the moderate society could have better financial stability than an average member of the communist society. In this case, the overall inequality of …show more content…
He argues that “distributive justice” is not a neutral term as the term “distribution” implies that there is a mechanism to giving things out that contradicts free trade. Nozick instead calls his theory Justice in Holdings, with holdings simply referring to financial assets. There are three major components addressing the holdings of people within this theory. The first is the principle of acquisition of holdings, which states that a person is entitled to his or her holdings as long as they were acquired justly, or without force or fraud. The second principle, the principle of transfer of holdings, states that holdings can be transferred in any way that the holder desires, as long as it is not forced or fraudulent. Nozick’s third principle, the principle of rectification of violations, states that “no one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of [principles] 1 and 2.” This means that if one has a holding that was originally unjustly acquired, the current owner is not entitled to that holding. For example, if someone robs a bank and gives you the money you are not entitled to that
To understand Rawls’ principles of societal justice, it is important to first define exactly what a society is. Rawls argues that society is a group of people who cooperate and follow the same rules …show more content…
This would be agreed to from the original position because someone who is unaware of any features of their life would want to be given equal rights for all situations they could be born into. The second principle, the difference principle, is more complex. Rawls argues that because all members of a society cooperate to gain advantages for the society as a whole, those in the original position would not find it fair for some members of society to struggle so that more fortunate members may prosper. Instead however, the advances of those well off in society should lead to improvements in the lives of all members of society, since all members of society have to cooperate to make the advancements possible. This logic leads to the second principle which states that social or economic inequalities within society are justifiable only when they create benefits for all members of society, specifically those who are disadvantaged. For example, consider a communistic society where all people within it are impoverished, compared to a moderate society where there are some rich members and some poor members. If the moderate society is wealthier than the communistic society, the “poor” members of the moderate society could have better financial stability than an average member of the communist society. In this case, the overall inequality of …show more content…
He argues that “distributive justice” is not a neutral term as the term “distribution” implies that there is a mechanism to giving things out that contradicts free trade. Nozick instead calls his theory Justice in Holdings, with holdings simply referring to financial assets. There are three major components addressing the holdings of people within this theory. The first is the principle of acquisition of holdings, which states that a person is entitled to his or her holdings as long as they were acquired justly, or without force or fraud. The second principle, the principle of transfer of holdings, states that holdings can be transferred in any way that the holder desires, as long as it is not forced or fraudulent. Nozick’s third principle, the principle of rectification of violations, states that “no one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of [principles] 1 and 2.” This means that if one has a holding that was originally unjustly acquired, the current owner is not entitled to that holding. For example, if someone robs a bank and gives you the money you are not entitled to that