Robert Nozick's Distributive Justice

Improved Essays
Philosophy 1500
November 16, 2017
Draft Paper
Shakhzoda Abdusalomova

Robert Nozick’s Distributive Justice

Abstract

In this paper, I would like to talk about how Nozicks made the individual, and his rights to life. And I am strongly agreed with Robert Nozick’s life style and his arguments. Robert Nozick theory of justice explains how hard work and great talent pays off at the end. In reality the poor just gets poorer and the rich get richer. For example, the rich person has the ability to go and live wherever he or she desires, but the poor is left with not many options of choosing where to stay or go. Nozick believes everyone has their own right and should get justice that is fair. I think each philosopher have their own advocate.
…show more content…
In the light of his right theory of justice. Robert Nozick was an American academic and renowned political philosopher, born in Brooklyn, New York, and he taught at Harvard University. Throwing light on impotent aspects of Rawl’s theory of justice we now begin on another theory of justice by Robert Nozick. However, Nozick developed his theory in response to Rawls’ theory and he based his theories of justice on rights. Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice is historical. It claims that we can tell whether a distribution of good is just or not by looking at its history. The tricky thing is that Nozick said almost nothing about how to fill in what those three principles require. For example , the rich people has the ability to go and live wherever he or she wants, but the poor people is left with not many options of choosing where to stay or go as we all know life is not fair. Because he thought he had two highly abstract arguments that could clear the field of all …show more content…
He said “the general outlines of a theory of justice in holdings are that the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice.” If anyone who got what he has in a manner consistent with these three principles would Nozik said no one has any grounds for complaint against him. This gives us Nozick entitlement theory of distributive justice. What matters is only that people get what they have in manner consistent with the three principles of justice in holding, and this is capable with some people having much more than others. Unlikely hard workers having less than lazier but likely people, morally serving individuals having higher incomes than others. And it is therefore equal or unequal it happens to be, and indeed fair or unfair it might seem known to be. In the other hand Nozick argues about the Wilt Chamberlain example. The example is supposed to show that so called patterned principles of justice objectionably limit liberty. Here are some examples of patterns that seem like superficially candidates for being requirements of justice, the distribution is equal, or it maximizes, or it apportion goods. The problem was that it was hard to show that all of these views reached the intolerable result of banning capitalist acts among adults. The others either clearly favored

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Principles of Justice vs. Utlitarianism Justice is a social concept that is used as an assessment tool in various social institutions such as government, courts, economic systems and education. John Rawls proposed two principles of justice that will help govern in the creation of social and political practices that are fair to all (p. 52): • Rawls’ first principle of justice states that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others (p. 53).” • The second principle: “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be everyone’s advantage, and b) attached to positions and offices open to all”.…

    • 818 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • 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.…

    • 320 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Great Essays

    Now that the objection of self-interest has been refuted, the emphasis needs to shift towards an explanation of Rawls second principle of justice. The second principle, commonly referred to as the “Difference Principle,” indicates that, “[S]ocial and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.” Rawls specifies that the “Liberty Principle” is “lexicographical”. This means that the principles are hierarchically ordered where the first principle must be satisfied before the second can even be considered.…

    • 1606 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The principle of the justice model works closely with ideal of fairness,…

    • 312 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The book The Divide by Matt Taibbi is an over look at the growing problem of inequality of the justice system. The book explains several examples of diversity in the justice in America. The diversity is between the wealthy and the not so wealthy. This book is a very good example of this course, because it is an over view of the different discussions throughout this courses.…

    • 1189 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved 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

    He might say that how many Amish people are there now in the current world, that the reason there aren’t that many Amish people left in the world is because their system does not work to keep up with everyone’s demands. In an ideal world that would be great, but in a realistic world, it would not work. The doctor in a larger population might not want to be making the same amount of money as a garbage man, therefore possible doctors might not want to put themselves through the stresses of becoming a doctor causing less doctors to help people. For Nozick justice is about historical issues, how each individual transaction is placed. Therefore, it is unjust for the government to take any money that you have justly…

    • 415 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    To discern the scope of such rights, Attas, drawing from the writings of several natural-right philosophers, argues that A’s bundle of rights over X depends on the extent to which X “promot[es]…values such as need, welfare or the realization of self-consciousness for [A].” “The [bundle of rights] that ensues is justified merely as a consequence of respecting the sort of entitlements [e.g. the entitlement to self-ownership] that best promote [sic] these particular individual values.” In simpler terms, we begin by asserting that A naturally owns X. Next, we justify A’s ownership of X by “point[ing] out the…values [that ownership of X] tends to protect or enhance for [A].” Then, we use these values to decide which rights compose A’s bundle of rights over X. Our task here is thus to decide what values self-ownership protects, and then to ask if income rights follow from these…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Robert Nozick’s view on the libertarian principle of justice states that it is unjust to force rich people to pay extra taxes for the poor because it takes away from their liberty. In other words, he disagrees with John Rawls’ view of redistributing wealth because the wealthy do not voluntarily give their money to ones in need in this principle. Instead, money from the wealthy is involuntarily taken to give to the poor in the difference principle. However, Nozick does not think that giving to the poor is always bad. To clarify, he thinks that giving to the poor is perfectly just as long as it is voluntary.…

    • 1099 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Karl Marx, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick are three prominent philosophers whose political theories have an important place in the modern political debate about the role of the state, how society should be structured and the concept of justice. Karl Marx was born 1818, his major work was The Communist Manifesto published in 1848. Marx advocated for a type of socialism called communism where the dominant goals are the abolition of private property and class antagonisms through a revolution of the proletariat or working class. John Rawls was born in 1921, his major work was A Theory of Justice published in 1971. Rawl’s defended social liberalism, egalitarianism, and the welfare state in the form of distributive justice.…

    • 1636 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the beginning of the documentary Inequality For All, Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor under the Presidency of Bill Clinton, tells the audience of his students that that the question about inequality “is not inequality per se. The question is, when does inequality become a problem?” (Reich). In other words, Reich agrees with John Rawls, the father of the theory of justice, that inequality is not a problem. According to Rawls, the problem is when inequality could not be arranged in a way that nobody would be deprived of an opportunity to achieve the higher social status.…

    • 767 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    (Rousseau 108). Within the first principle of justice, Rawls looks to promote the same principals as Rousseau. They each see the importance of having equal basic liberties for each individual. For Rousseau, equality promotes a political community that protects individuals from problems found in commercial society. For Rawls, equality is central to the fairness and justice that he looks to emphasize.…

    • 1251 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In An Inquiry Concerning Morals, David Hume writes about what his view of justice is. Hume believes that when it comes to justice in a society, there is no need to prove justice and that ‘public utility’ is the origin of justice. Hume states, “… the rules of equity or justice depend entirely on the particular state and condition, in which men are placed, and owe their origin and existence to that utility which results to the public from their strict and regular observance” (Hume, pg. 86). To prove that justice is valuable to a society, he examines two claims, the origin of justice and the grounds for the merit of justice.…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Am I jus for my disobedient acts? I must be jus for each one that I have ever committed. Civil disobedience is a fracture within the law therefore there must a relishable reason to be disobedient. Yet the reason to go against the state would be due to negligence. Justice is associated with the concept of everything plays a natural role, coming from Feinberg and Gross.…

    • 599 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    By creating an advantage for oneself, the disadvantage for other people comes back as a disadvantage to that person too, since everyone is in the same situation. John Rawl 's Principle of Justice is the two part principle in Socail Contract Theory that expands the definition of the Social Contract such that it does not focus on moral rules as much as it focuses on rights and liberties. This clause of the Principle of Justice states that everyone in the community may make claims to certain rights as long as everyone may have the same claim to these rights. The second part of the principle, was added to address how social and economic inequalities may be morally acceptable. Inequalities may be justified if the following two conditions are satisfied: the first is every member of the community must have the same chance at improving his or her economic or social position.…

    • 834 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays