John Rawl and Robert Nozik Theories of Distributive Justice - Essay Example

Running Head: ETHICS Ethics Name Institution Date Question 3. John Rawl and Robert Nozik theories of Distributive justice John Rawl’s theory of distributive justice is an exploration of a simple idea that the aim of distributive justice is to give back to individuals who are faced with misfortunes. This is because some people are very lucky while others always meet bad lucks. Therefore the society has the duty to society to change the distribution of those things that result to misfortunes on some people and good luck in others (Wines, 2006, P 69). Nozik, on the other hand is against the distributive justice and he says that every person has a right to what he acquires and can go further to acquire whatever does not belong to anyone so long as this does not hurt anyone. Comparison of Rawl’s and Nozik’s theories of distributive justice According to Rawl, justice involves liberty. This means that once a person has attained a certain level of wealth, he should consider the principle of distributive justice that concerns those who are unfortunate. Rawl is against the idea that rights should come before justice. It is the principle of justice that gives people rights, responsibilities and benefits. He means that people should claim their rights after they have fulfilled the principle of justice. On the other hand, Nozik sates that justice involves acquisition of rights over something that has no prior ownership, justice can also be acquired by acquiring something from someone else through purchasing that thing, and where injustice has been committed in acquisition of property, it can be rectified by restoring the property to the rightful owner. The main difference between the two philosophers lies on “difference principle” and Nozik’s “entitlement theory”. The “difference principle” that is stated by Rawl states that inequalities in distribution of resources are allowed only if they are for the benefit of the most disadvantaged members of the society. He believes this because every person in the society has a right to the goods of the society and that natural factors should not affect their rights. But before the rights are taken into consideration, equality in share of individual’s wealth should be taken into consideration. Nozik’ idea in the entitlement theory is that it is only in the free market exchanges that people can be considered as equal. As long as whatever people holds are acquired in a just manner, justice should again be observed in transfer of their ownership. Injustice occurs on any levies on the amount that is required in maintaining institutions of just exchanges and acquisition (Roemer, 1998, P 205). Other differences between Nozik’s and Rawl’s theories include that according to Nozik, justice in acquisition of property depends on how that property was acquired. But according to Rawl, justice depends on how the property is distributed. Another difference is that Rawl also argues that influence by a person’s place of birth, his family and his social status are determined by his luck and should not have an impact on the benefits the person gets in his life. The aspect of distributive justice should then be there to ensure that some people do not get so much luck more than the others, and also that the good things are fairly distributed so that everyone benefits. But on the other hand, Nozik argues that distributive justice involves stating rules that should be followed in distributing and acquiring resources. This is just to ensure that the process of acquisition and exchange of resources is fair. Rawl and Nozik on basic social institutions According to Rawl, the principles of justice should state dictate the proper manner for distribution of advantages and misfortunes in the society. Justice is the most essential political value and must be observed in all basic institutions of the society. This is applied in the political institutions that control the market, the family, freedom and the property. This is because it is related to what constitute the society and its role. If the society observes equality in resource distribution for the good of every member, these conditions must be protected and where there is inequality, this should be justified. Rawl states that his principles of justice should be applied in assessment of practise of justice in the basic social institutions such as the family and the government. Rawl based his argument on the fact that for human beings to develop, justice must be availed to them. According to Rawl, justice must be first observed in the family. This is because it is in the family where one may discover the role models and get an understanding that other people also need justice same as one may need. His original position is that people are not different and not influenced by the relationship between them and those people they care for. The family that one comes from should therefore not limit whatever he or she will achieve in life so long as there is justice. In his theory of moral development, he states that people should put themselves in the position of others and see what they can do in such positions. Therefore, both parents should participate in taking care of their children so that the child can grow into adulthood under the capacity of observing empathy and justice. However, according to his critics, he leaves out the importance of family justice which is of central importance to social justice (Fleischacker, 2005, p109). Concerning the government, John Rawl sates that the government should also ensure that distributive justice is observed when it comes to distribution of resources. The government can play a role in protecting this justice by ensuring that there is no taxation on the resources that are required in observing this justice. Therefore, the kind of social institution observed by Rawl is one where justice starts from the family where one should not care the relationship between him and the person he is caring for, then to the society where there is cooperation in determining distribution of resources and to the nation that protects societal justice. Nozik on the other hand describes a different kind of institution where there should be no caring about equality in wealth distribution. He explains that human beings own themselves and they therefore have rights to what they have including their lives, property and what they get from their labour. According to Nozik, to own means to have all the rights regarding something. These rights therefore put limits on how others should treat you, and your property. Other people should therefore not kill you, interfere with your property or destroy it (Wolff, 1991, p76). Nozik describes taxation as forced labour, or interference with one’s property. This is because it involves taking some wealth for an individual so as to fund programs that will benefit the entire society. This is because the government has structured the taxation system such that any time one labours, a certain amount is taken from his gains. Nozik describes this as slavery because it gives others rights to benefits that they have not worked for. Nozik argues that there should be no agency or a body overlooking distribution of wealth to ensure distributive justice. He states that this means that there will be an authority in place that will distribute resources to individuals as if it is the “manna from heaven”. Nozik does not support the idea from whichever basic social institution. He maintains that a good institution is where there is justice in acquisition of own wealth from resources that no one can claim prior ownership. The other application of justice according to Rozik is in the transfer of property ownership. This is where justice should guide the process of owning a property that was previously owned by another person. This means respecting another person’s rights in the way he decides to do with his property as long as he does it in a just manner. However, Rozik encourages an institution where in case justice is not followed; there is room for rectification of the injustice done (Bowie, 2001, p87). Generally, Nozik is for a social institution where people should be allowed to have rights in acquisition o property regardless of the fact that others are lagging far much behind. He basis his argument on utilitarianism where he says that justice comes in where there is maximum happiness. He does not support idea of distributive justice and insist on respect for people’s rights. The society that I would prefer to live in is the one described by Nozik. This is because it promotes hard work in the society because there is no one person who will wait to benefit from what others have acquired. Every one should work to gain own property. Justice should just be therefore to protect whatever one does and what others do to one’s property. Such a society will encourage people to work for themselves to achieve equality on resources. The basic social institutions should just be there to protect against injustices. This is unlike the society described by Rawl where other people will benefit from the labour of others. The society and the government should not interfere with the efforts of the citizens just for the good of the entire society. Justice should just be there to protect their efforts. References Wolff, J. (1991). Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Wines, W. (2006). Ethics, law, and business. London: Routledge. Roemer, J. (1998). Theories of distributive justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Fleischacker, S. (2005). A short history of distributive justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Bowie, N. (2001). Towards a new theory of distributive justice. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press. Read More

Nozik’ idea in the entitlement theory is that it is only in the free market exchanges that people can be considered as equal. As long as whatever people holds are acquired in a just manner, justice should again be observed in transfer of their ownership. Injustice occurs on any levies on the amount that is required in maintaining institutions of just exchanges and acquisition (Roemer, 1998, P 205). Other differences between Nozik’s and Rawl’s theories include that according to Nozik, justice in acquisition of property depends on how that property was acquired.

But according to Rawl, justice depends on how the property is distributed. Another difference is that Rawl also argues that influence by a person’s place of birth, his family and his social status are determined by his luck and should not have an impact on the benefits the person gets in his life. The aspect of distributive justice should then be there to ensure that some people do not get so much luck more than the others, and also that the good things are fairly distributed so that everyone benefits.

But on the other hand, Nozik argues that distributive justice involves stating rules that should be followed in distributing and acquiring resources. This is just to ensure that the process of acquisition and exchange of resources is fair. Rawl and Nozik on basic social institutions According to Rawl, the principles of justice should state dictate the proper manner for distribution of advantages and misfortunes in the society. Justice is the most essential political value and must be observed in all basic institutions of the society.

This is applied in the political institutions that control the market, the family, freedom and the property. This is because it is related to what constitute the society and its role. If the society observes equality in resource distribution for the good of every member, these conditions must be protected and where there is inequality, this should be justified. Rawl states that his principles of justice should be applied in assessment of practise of justice in the basic social institutions such as the family and the government.

Rawl based his argument on the fact that for human beings to develop, justice must be availed to them. According to Rawl, justice must be first observed in the family. This is because it is in the family where one may discover the role models and get an understanding that other people also need justice same as one may need. His original position is that people are not different and not influenced by the relationship between them and those people they care for. The family that one comes from should therefore not limit whatever he or she will achieve in life so long as there is justice.

In his theory of moral development, he states that people should put themselves in the position of others and see what they can do in such positions. Therefore, both parents should participate in taking care of their children so that the child can grow into adulthood under the capacity of observing empathy and justice. However, according to his critics, he leaves out the importance of family justice which is of central importance to social justice (Fleischacker, 2005, p109). Concerning the government, John Rawl sates that the government should also ensure that distributive justice is observed when it comes to distribution of resources.

The government can play a role in protecting this justice by ensuring that there is no taxation on the resources that are required in observing this justice. Therefore, the kind of social institution observed by Rawl is one where justice starts from the family where one should not care the relationship between him and the person he is caring for, then to the society where there is cooperation in determining distribution of resources and to the nation that protects societal justice. Nozik on the other hand describes a different kind of institution where there should be no caring about equality in wealth distribution.

Read More