Distributive Justice - Term Paper Example

The benefits are obvious in that everyone potentially has the same chance and ability as a result of the use of distributive justice. The drawbacks are also clear however, in that this approach means that the individual’s property may not in fact be theirs, which can lead one to potentially question the idea of the individual’s right to own property in the United States today. Robert Nozick would argue that while there is a place for government that place should not extend to property. He promoted the idea that the majority cannot take from the minority unless they agree to it.

Justice was outlined with three principles by Nozick, the principle of justice in acquisition, principle of justice in transfer and principle of the rectification of injustice. These principles were all sound, and when presented with a set amount of property and an increasing population the principle of transfer becomes important. Each individual may share what they have however; none of the individuals can be forced by the governing body to do so. Each individual can purchase property or trade for property from another but no individual can be forced to do so.

Nozick stated, “The principle of distribution in accordance with moral merit is a patterned historical principle, which specifies a patterned distribution” (156). With less government intervention as he sees it is possible to see some parts of society have more property than another, however, if everyone is working to provide for and purchase property with the intent of generating either personal gain or simply a stable life for one’s family unit than these patterns as Nozick says would adjust themselves based on need and the natural tendency of society as an entity’s to grow and change.

The principle of justice in acquisition was directly connected to the principle of justice in transfer for Nozick. He saw that some people steal, defraud, enslave, seize and utilize force to exclude others from competing. It was his idea that none of these were beneficial or right. However, contrary to his approach and views regarding the right or wrongness of these others actions he still supported the use of state based decision making with regards to what is fair or not. He wrote, "Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to be of greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society.

" And yet he also believed that stealing, defrauding, enslaving and more were wrong. If we use a distributive approach as he would have us do we are in fact ensuring that the less fortunate will gain much needed items, however, we are also ensuring that the state is made to forcibly or through the threat of force take from others to supply this. While the idea of distributive justice is a fair minded one it is a difficult approach to rectify when attempting to prevent civil crimes or crimes against the individual.

We see by looking at Nozicks approach that it is impossible to promote absolute equality without taking from someone which in turn immediately discards the idea of equality. While the balance has been accomplished with product and property there will now be impropriety within the system of law which translates to inequality within the law. This approach would in effect cause the state to be a criminal simply by its