Distributive justice is the allocation of goods to benefit a society assigned by a basic social institution. Distributive justice is a problem that will never be outdated. It has found a way to be incorporated no matter the time period; from the issue of slavery in the 1860’s to the current situation pertaining to welfare programs. How should resources be allocated in a way that is just? What constitutes as just? 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 …show more content…
The first principle is the principle of liberty; by this he means that all people have an inviolability that cannot be stripped even if it benefits the society. Under this category fall things such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to vote. The second principle is one of equaility, in which the greatest beneficiaries are the least advantaged and where everyone has a chance to have a role to assign rights and duties. According to Rawl, the purest form of justice is one that is beneficiary to all members of a society and does not allow for a higher quality of life for many at the expense of a lower quality of life for a few. A society is created by cooperation; therefore, it would be unjust to provide better opportunities for one group over another. I choose to say “quality of life” and “opportunities opposed” to “same life” because every person in a society has different goals and a different way they want their life they want to live in order to feel fulfilled but they must have the opportunity to able to achieve what any other person has. In order for his theory to work there has to be a somewhat uniform public conception of justice. By this he means that all people accept and …show more content…
Nozick claims anything beyond the minimal state is unjust because it is forcing you to act against your entitlements. INCLUDE A BETTER EXAMPLE& distributive justice as not a nuetral term. Nozick coined the entitlement theory of justice, which is, . Under the entitlement theory of justice there are three major topics: justice in acquisition (holdings have not been obtained by not violating the rights of others), justice in transfer (a voluntary exchange of holdings was transferred from one party to another) , and rectification of injustice (if holdings were transferred unjustly then steps should be taken to amend the injustices). An example of the rectification of injustice is the government assistance provided to Native Americans for the unjust taking of their land. Nozick’s entitlement theory is historical meaning the possession of the holding is dependent on its historical context. If different events had happen the their could be a potential for a different party to be entitled to the
John Rawl presents the idea of justice in a social institution by comparing …show more content…
The first principle is the principle of liberty; by this he means that all people have an inviolability that cannot be stripped even if it benefits the society. Under this category fall things such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to vote. The second principle is one of equaility, in which the greatest beneficiaries are the least advantaged and where everyone has a chance to have a role to assign rights and duties. According to Rawl, the purest form of justice is one that is beneficiary to all members of a society and does not allow for a higher quality of life for many at the expense of a lower quality of life for a few. A society is created by cooperation; therefore, it would be unjust to provide better opportunities for one group over another. I choose to say “quality of life” and “opportunities opposed” to “same life” because every person in a society has different goals and a different way they want their life they want to live in order to feel fulfilled but they must have the opportunity to able to achieve what any other person has. In order for his theory to work there has to be a somewhat uniform public conception of justice. By this he means that all people accept and …show more content…
Nozick claims anything beyond the minimal state is unjust because it is forcing you to act against your entitlements. INCLUDE A BETTER EXAMPLE& distributive justice as not a nuetral term. Nozick coined the entitlement theory of justice, which is, . Under the entitlement theory of justice there are three major topics: justice in acquisition (holdings have not been obtained by not violating the rights of others), justice in transfer (a voluntary exchange of holdings was transferred from one party to another) , and rectification of injustice (if holdings were transferred unjustly then steps should be taken to amend the injustices). An example of the rectification of injustice is the government assistance provided to Native Americans for the unjust taking of their land. Nozick’s entitlement theory is historical meaning the possession of the holding is dependent on its historical context. If different events had happen the their could be a potential for a different party to be entitled to the