The readings that we have read that has most changed the way I think about justice is
Marlon Young explanation of the distributive paradigm and John Rawls’ theory of the veil of
ignorance. The philosopher I learned the least from is John Nozick because of his entitlement
theory.
I learned the most from Young’s Justice and the Politics of Difference and Rawls’ A Theory of Justice because they try to determine the best way to individually and collectively enforce fair and equal social justice amongst the people. Young’s argument against institutional context is crucial to understanding social justice because they create and enforce impartiality on a broader scale than material goods. A form of social injustice, in its institutional context, …show more content…
Nozick’s entitlement philosophy only is only concerned with individualism and the distribution of property. Although supporting individualism (i.e. race, beliefs, customs, etc.) is essential to maintaining harmonious societies, they are render useless without the involvement of the government (to help ensure these individual rights are protected). Nozick theory is problematic because he believes people feel ownership for their talents, resources, socioeconomic status and more. As a result, the philosophy is formulated around the notion of free market exchanges. Nozick explain justice using his three ideas of: Justice in acquisition, justice in transfer, and the rectification of injustice. Firstly, justice in acquisition is defined as the way in which people primarily gain property rights over what was not owned previously. Secondly, justice in transfer concerns how people acquire property rights over something that was traded from one person or group to another. Lastly, rectification of injustice examines how to make sure people are given the proper protection rights against problems with the trade become evident (i.e. not received, does not meet standards, falsely advertised, …show more content…
This unfair distribution of property does not always fairly illustrate what some people might deserve, need, or try to establish any form of welfare (for those who are in dire need). More importantly, Nozick believes that this is just because people’s talents, property, and abilities strictly belong to the person who owns them. Therefore, they are not and should not be obligated by the state to share the socioeconomic profits of their talents, abilities, and properties to those in need or others. However, Nozick’s theory tends to ignore how many people have “earned” their property through slavery, wrongful labor acts (i.e. outsourcing and employer versus employee hierarchal system), and institutional contexts. For instance, Nozick concept supports those who take advantage of the poor through establishing laws based on inequity both socially and economically. His theory is problematic because he does not accurately try to assess how many people’s property were acquired through the unfair hardships of others. His theory is problematic because it supports the notion that thee rich will remain rich while the poor remains poor (unless they have some special talent!). His theory is problematic, because it only studies distribution of property through his white male Caucasian view; which is infuriating because he does not suffer from
Marlon Young explanation of the distributive paradigm and John Rawls’ theory of the veil of
ignorance. The philosopher I learned the least from is John Nozick because of his entitlement
theory.
I learned the most from Young’s Justice and the Politics of Difference and Rawls’ A Theory of Justice because they try to determine the best way to individually and collectively enforce fair and equal social justice amongst the people. Young’s argument against institutional context is crucial to understanding social justice because they create and enforce impartiality on a broader scale than material goods. A form of social injustice, in its institutional context, …show more content…
Nozick’s entitlement philosophy only is only concerned with individualism and the distribution of property. Although supporting individualism (i.e. race, beliefs, customs, etc.) is essential to maintaining harmonious societies, they are render useless without the involvement of the government (to help ensure these individual rights are protected). Nozick theory is problematic because he believes people feel ownership for their talents, resources, socioeconomic status and more. As a result, the philosophy is formulated around the notion of free market exchanges. Nozick explain justice using his three ideas of: Justice in acquisition, justice in transfer, and the rectification of injustice. Firstly, justice in acquisition is defined as the way in which people primarily gain property rights over what was not owned previously. Secondly, justice in transfer concerns how people acquire property rights over something that was traded from one person or group to another. Lastly, rectification of injustice examines how to make sure people are given the proper protection rights against problems with the trade become evident (i.e. not received, does not meet standards, falsely advertised, …show more content…
This unfair distribution of property does not always fairly illustrate what some people might deserve, need, or try to establish any form of welfare (for those who are in dire need). More importantly, Nozick believes that this is just because people’s talents, property, and abilities strictly belong to the person who owns them. Therefore, they are not and should not be obligated by the state to share the socioeconomic profits of their talents, abilities, and properties to those in need or others. However, Nozick’s theory tends to ignore how many people have “earned” their property through slavery, wrongful labor acts (i.e. outsourcing and employer versus employee hierarchal system), and institutional contexts. For instance, Nozick concept supports those who take advantage of the poor through establishing laws based on inequity both socially and economically. His theory is problematic because he does not accurately try to assess how many people’s property were acquired through the unfair hardships of others. His theory is problematic because it supports the notion that thee rich will remain rich while the poor remains poor (unless they have some special talent!). His theory is problematic, because it only studies distribution of property through his white male Caucasian view; which is infuriating because he does not suffer from