Binghao Guo
Perm 6706493
Philosophy 4 - Paper 2
Nov. 29th, 2017
Prof. Quentin Gee
TA David Mokriski
The topic of distributive justice has an important meaning to the political philosophy and become the guidance of establishing social justice for the whole society. Not much people would agree that the distribution of economic goods in our society is just. In fact, our social institutions are created in order to maintain the advantage of the ruling class (or upper class). However, social institutions should represent the interests of the whole society, instead of a certain part of the society, in an ideally just society. The political philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick offer quite different answers to these types of …show more content…
Nozick defined society is an association of people who seek to have protection of these rights. Nozick believed that the best form to protect these rights is a “night watchman” state, or a minimal state. The minimal state only provides protection against force outside the society, within the society in an unbiased way. Nozick claimed that a society (or a state) that goes beyond these minimal bounds compels people to use their time, money, or social factors in a way that people might not want to, is a violation of people’s basic freedoms. Hence, Nozick said that anything more than a minimal state is unjust. Based on this idea, Nozick found out that distributive justice is not a right conception. Distributive justice suggests some mechanism which violated people’s basic freedoms by forcing people to give up interests or take burdens in order to make the least advantaged people better off. In Nozick’s opinion, the principle of justice is about entitlement (or justice in holdings). There are three principles in entitlement: first, justice in acquisition; second, justice in transfer; and third, rectification of injustice. Justice in acquisition claims that if you acquire goods without force, fraud, or theft, then your holdings have been acquired justly. Justice in transfer states that you may transfer, which must not be forced or the result of fraud, your holdings to anyone you so please. Rectification of injustice says if you have a holding that is not just or has not been transferred to you justly, then you have an unjust holding. For example, if you bought a stolen bicycle from a third party, you still don’t have a just holding. Then Nozick discussed about the patterns. Nozick used the Wilt Chamberlain example to show that patterned principles of justice objectionably limit liberty. “Patterns” refers patterned theories
Perm 6706493
Philosophy 4 - Paper 2
Nov. 29th, 2017
Prof. Quentin Gee
TA David Mokriski
The topic of distributive justice has an important meaning to the political philosophy and become the guidance of establishing social justice for the whole society. Not much people would agree that the distribution of economic goods in our society is just. In fact, our social institutions are created in order to maintain the advantage of the ruling class (or upper class). However, social institutions should represent the interests of the whole society, instead of a certain part of the society, in an ideally just society. The political philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick offer quite different answers to these types of …show more content…
Nozick defined society is an association of people who seek to have protection of these rights. Nozick believed that the best form to protect these rights is a “night watchman” state, or a minimal state. The minimal state only provides protection against force outside the society, within the society in an unbiased way. Nozick claimed that a society (or a state) that goes beyond these minimal bounds compels people to use their time, money, or social factors in a way that people might not want to, is a violation of people’s basic freedoms. Hence, Nozick said that anything more than a minimal state is unjust. Based on this idea, Nozick found out that distributive justice is not a right conception. Distributive justice suggests some mechanism which violated people’s basic freedoms by forcing people to give up interests or take burdens in order to make the least advantaged people better off. In Nozick’s opinion, the principle of justice is about entitlement (or justice in holdings). There are three principles in entitlement: first, justice in acquisition; second, justice in transfer; and third, rectification of injustice. Justice in acquisition claims that if you acquire goods without force, fraud, or theft, then your holdings have been acquired justly. Justice in transfer states that you may transfer, which must not be forced or the result of fraud, your holdings to anyone you so please. Rectification of injustice says if you have a holding that is not just or has not been transferred to you justly, then you have an unjust holding. For example, if you bought a stolen bicycle from a third party, you still don’t have a just holding. Then Nozick discussed about the patterns. Nozick used the Wilt Chamberlain example to show that patterned principles of justice objectionably limit liberty. “Patterns” refers patterned theories