Significant Approval of the Contemporary Political Philosophers - Essay Example

?Critically evaluate Nozick’s response to Rawls’s theory of justice In the contemporary political philosophy, John Rawls’ theory of distributive justice (A Theory of Justice) is often regarded as the most important contribution to political and moral philosophy since the 19th century. However, Robert Nozick’s response to Rawls’ theory of justice, as established in Nozick’s book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, offer a convincing explanation of the full range of possibilities for contemporary liberal democracies on the topic of justice. Thus, the entitlement theory of justice, which is comprised in Nozick’s response to Rawls’ theory of justice, reveals the clash between libertarianism and social welfare liberalism on the topic of justice. Although both Nozick and Rawls belonged to the social contract tradition in political philosophy, Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice should be realised primarily as an opposition to Rawls’ theory of distributive justice and it everyone in the society is entitled to engage in distribution of property. As Suri Ratnapala maintains, “Rawls’ case for distributive justice in its simplest form is that a system of social cooperation makes everyone better off than a system of non-cooperation in which each person fends for themselves by their own effort. Principles of justice are required to distribute the surplus that results from social cooperation.” (Ratnapala 2009, P. 346). Therefore, Rawls’ theory of justice is mainly based on the hypothetical social contract among the self-interested members in a state of ignorance regarding their future, and they take part in a game of risk minimisation. The libertarian response to Rawls’ theory of justice as offered by the American political philosopher Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia should be realised as belonging to the social contract tradition in political philosophy. Significantly, the philosophical foundation of Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice is in a free society and a sense of entitlement is the basis of his principles of social distribution. This paper makes a critical evaluation of Nozick’s response to Rawls’s theory of justice in order to comprehend the major arguments of both these political philosophers and their relevance in socio-political scenario. In a reflective exploration of Nozick’s response to Rawls’s theory of justice, it becomes lucid that the contrasting books of John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice and Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia have dominated the debate in analytical political philosophy for the last three decades. In his 1971 book, Rawls presented the case for a form of liberal egalitarianism which was challenged by Nozick’s arguments in favour of libertarianism, including the free market, absolute property rights, and the ‘minimal state’, presented in his book in 1974. Ever since the publishing of these contrasting books, a vast quantity of critical literature has been written on their political philosophy and Nozick has gained the approbation of the contemporary political philosophers as his arguments are strikingly close to the political spirit of the current age. “Nozick’s project is to defend the libertarian minimal state – akin to the ‘night-watchman’ state of classical liberalism – which exists purely to safeguard the personal and property rights of individuals. The enterprise falls into three stage.” (Wolff 1991, P. 4). First of all, Nozick makes the argument, against the Anarchist, that a state as broad as a minimal state can be justified. Secondly, he makes his arguments against the defender of the extensive state by claiming that the minimal state is the most extensive form of legitimate state. Thirdly, he maintains that the minimal state is ‘inspiring’ as well as right, and there is no cause of regret. (Wolff 1991, P. 4). Therefore, in contradiction of Rawls’ case for a form of liberal egalitarianism, Nozick’s makes his pertinent arguments on the side of libertarianism which consists of the free market, absolute property rights, and the ‘minimal state’. It is fundamental to realise that Rawls’s theory of justice considers justice as fairness and it makes a strong defence of the concept of justice based the fundamental principles of procedural theory. According to the procedural theory, social justice requires a meticulous following of the rules and Rawls’s theory of justice maintains that the members of the society may choose principles of distributive justice under controlled conditions. It is important to comprehend that “Rawls insists that justice prevails only when every departure from equality can be rationally justified. Unlike in Nozick’s entitlement theory where equality as an idea is conspicuous by its absence, Rawls’ theory of justice is premised upon the need for equality. Rawls sets out his theory by placing individuals abstracted from their social and economic contexts behind what he calls the ‘veil of ignorance’.” (Bhargava and Acharya 2008, P. 78). Therefore, it is pertinent to maintain that Rawls’ theory of justice is based on the idea of social contract, i.e. society is a system of cooperation for mutual advantage between individuals. In his work A Theory of Justice, John Rawls presents justice as fairness and he brings to the surface the role of justice as well the various principles of justice. Fundamentally, Rawls’ theory of justice follows two important principles of justice and they are liberty principle and difference principle. His explanation of the theory of justice as fairness elevates the traditional conception of the social contract to a higher level of abstraction. According to his theory of justice, justice is the first virtue of social institutions and his main objective is to present an idea of justice which generalises and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of social contract which is based in the theories of Locke, Rousseau and Kant. “In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature sin the traditional theory of the social contract… It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation characterised so as to lead to a certain conception of justice… The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.” (Rawls 1971, P. 12). It is essential to maintain that Rawls’ theory of justice follows two basic principles of justice: the liberty principle and the difference principle. The liberty principle is based on the equal basic liberties of citizens which include political liberty, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought, freedom of holding personal property , freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure, etc. The difference principle maintains that inequalities in social and economic goods may be acceptable if such inequalities endorse the welfare of the “least advantaged” members of society. It is pertinent to recognise that the difference principle can be easily accommodated to the general conception of justice. “Social and economic difference principle inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity… In fact, the general conception is simply the difference principle applied to all primary goods including liberty and opportunity and so no longer constrained by other part of the special conception.” (Rawls 1971, P. 83). Robert Nozick’s libertarian response to Rawls’ theory of justice is mainly based on the argument for a ‘minimal state’ which is devoted to the execution of contracts and protection of people against crimes. Nozick’s criticism of Rawls’ theory of justice can be traced in his widely acclaimed book Anarchy, State, and Utopia which challenges the most commonly held political and social positions of the contemporary world, such as liberal, socialist, and conservative. Nozick’s entitlement theory can be comprehended as the direct libertarian response to Rawls’ theory of justice and it is principally concerned with the distribution of property. As Michael Lacewing maintains, makes the argument that “Nozick’s entitlement theory that justice involves three ideas: 1. Justice in acquisition: how you first acquire property rights over something that has not previously been owned; 2. Justice in transfer: how you acquire property rights over something that has been transferred (e.g. by gift or exchange) to you by someone else; 3. Rectification of injustice: how to restore something to its rightful owner, in case of injustice in either acquisition or transfer.” (Lacewing, P. 3). According to Nozick, the basic question of political philosophy relating to state is not about how the government should be organised, but rather about how it is able to provide security for the individual’s life, liberty, and property. However, Nozick’s libertarian response to Rawls entitles merely for a minimal, or “night-watchman,” state, even for the sake of the security of the citizens, because there is no guarantee that an extensive governmental intervention would provide security of the citizens of a state. As he maintains in the Preface of his book, “... the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection.” (Nozick 1974. P. ix). Therefore, Nozick emphasised the idea of a minimal, “night-watchman”, state and argued for a free society which is the basis of his entitlement theory of justice. According to him, “there is no central distribution, no person or group entitled to control all the resources… In a free society, diverse personas control different resources, and new holdings arise out of voluntary exchanges and actions of persons. There is no more a distributing or distribution of shares…. (Nozick 1974. P. 149-50). In a profound analysis of Nozick’s response to Rawls’s theory of justice, it becomes lucid that Nozick challenged Rawls’s case for distributive justice on several grounds. The most important aspects of Nozick’s criticism of Rawls’s theory of justice are explained by the difference between Nozick’s libertarianism and Rawls’s social welfare liberalism. According these arguments, the principles that people settle on in the original position are not necessarily fair. Nozick’s criticism of Rawls’ theory also brings out the problem of procedural principles which govern a decision making process. “The procedural principle that Rawls used is that of a contract concluded by person in the original position… Nozick noticed a heavy irony in Rawls’ use of the contract process to generate his principles of justice. The contract process yields a principle that is anti-contract. Rawls’ principles of justice do not deny the freedom of contract.” (Ratnapala 2009, P. 347). Therefore, Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice is the right response to Rawls’s social welfare liberalism in his theory of justice. Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice challenges the hypothetical social contract among the self-interested members in a state of ignorance as explained in Rawls’ theory of justice. Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice is based on a free society and a sense of entitlement as the principle of social distribution. In conclusion, Nozick’s criticism of Rawls’s theory of justice has gained significant approval of the contemporary political philosophers because these arguments are strikingly connected to the political spirit of the contemporary world. Bibliography BHARGAVA, Rajeev and ACHARYA, Ashok. 2008. Political Theory: An Introduction. New Delhi: Pearson Education India. P. 78. LACEWING, Michael. [online]. “Rawls and Nozick on Justice.” P. 3. Last Accessed 15 March 2011 at: http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit3/political-philosophy/JusticeRawlsNozick.pdf RATNAPALA, Suri. 2009. Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 346. RAWLS, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. New York: Harvard University Press. P. 12. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books. P. 149-50. WOLFF, Jonathan. 1991. Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State. Stanford University Press. P. 4. Read More