Wealth inequality in today's society also known as the wealth gap, is growing. The top one percent makes twenty-five times more than the average family (Close 2016). This glaring inequality frequently brings up the question of what ought to be done with the distribution of wealth and resources. American Political Philosopher, John Rawls’, bases his argument on the premise that there should be an equal distribution of wealth in society. Robert Nozick, one of Rawls' main critics, demonstrates how distributive justice and an equal distribution of wealth conflicts with a person's individual liberty. In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick establishes his own entitlement theory of justice. His entitlement theory argues that holdings must be obtained
…show more content…
Nozick would use the Wilt Chamberlin analogy to back up his argument. Imagine that Wilt Chamberlain creates a contract with his team to have everyone who attends his game give him an extra twenty-five cents. Wilt now has earned two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, a greater amount than any other member of society. According to Nozick, this is just since Wilt has acquired this large sum of money through legitimate means. Nozick would use the idea of taxation to strengthen his argument, Nozick claims that taxation is on par with forced labor (Nozick, 169). He equates taxation to a form of legalized theft since taxes would take a variable number of hour and earnings and would not be received by the laborer. The person is essentially working a specific number of hours for the benefit of someone else. If he can prove that the wealthiest members in society have obtained their resources through a legitimate method, then a distribution of wealth will not be necessary. However, if it is proven that their holdings were not acquired through just means, he would argue that taxing the rich would be the best path since we are rectifying past …show more content…
He argues that a person's liberty is what is most important and should be a priority. The second principle is called the “Difference Principle” which requires social and economic inequalities to be modified so that they can produce an outcome that is fair and equal to all. Rawls’ notion of justice as fairness demands that distribution of the goods of society should be consciously structured in order to provide a fair distribution. His last argument ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in society, this is called the social contract theory. The “original position” is the main component on Rawls’ social contract account of justice, it allows us to figure out what principle of justice people in society would agree to if we lived in a society of total freedom. The main distinguishing component of the original positions the veil of ignorance. Rawls’ suggests us to imagine ourselves having no idea about who we are and where we stand in society. By being ignorant to our circumstances we can decide what will benefit our society without any bias
Nozick would use the Wilt Chamberlin analogy to back up his argument. Imagine that Wilt Chamberlain creates a contract with his team to have everyone who attends his game give him an extra twenty-five cents. Wilt now has earned two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, a greater amount than any other member of society. According to Nozick, this is just since Wilt has acquired this large sum of money through legitimate means. Nozick would use the idea of taxation to strengthen his argument, Nozick claims that taxation is on par with forced labor (Nozick, 169). He equates taxation to a form of legalized theft since taxes would take a variable number of hour and earnings and would not be received by the laborer. The person is essentially working a specific number of hours for the benefit of someone else. If he can prove that the wealthiest members in society have obtained their resources through a legitimate method, then a distribution of wealth will not be necessary. However, if it is proven that their holdings were not acquired through just means, he would argue that taxing the rich would be the best path since we are rectifying past …show more content…
He argues that a person's liberty is what is most important and should be a priority. The second principle is called the “Difference Principle” which requires social and economic inequalities to be modified so that they can produce an outcome that is fair and equal to all. Rawls’ notion of justice as fairness demands that distribution of the goods of society should be consciously structured in order to provide a fair distribution. His last argument ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in society, this is called the social contract theory. The “original position” is the main component on Rawls’ social contract account of justice, it allows us to figure out what principle of justice people in society would agree to if we lived in a society of total freedom. The main distinguishing component of the original positions the veil of ignorance. Rawls’ suggests us to imagine ourselves having no idea about who we are and where we stand in society. By being ignorant to our circumstances we can decide what will benefit our society without any bias