Theories of Justice - Nozick's Theory of Distributive Justice, Compared to Rawls - Essay Example

Running head: THEORIES OF JUSTICE Theories of Justice s Theories of Justice Introduction Justice is action in accord with the essential needs of law. It is suppose to guarantee that each and every member of society must be given fair treatment. Issues of justice occur in a number of different spheres and regularly play an essential role in causing, enabling, as well as addressing discord. The goal of the Justice System is to try to resolve and satisfy all these issues for the members of society. Injustice can result in disappointment, or rebellion. The different spheres articulate the principles of justice and fairness in their own manner resulting in different kinds and concepts of justice. The specific issue which I shall discuss here is property and tax in relation to Nozick and Rawls. Discussion Compare and contrast Out of the four theories of distributive justice, the only theory that has the most reliability is "justice as entitlement. This Nozickian theory is frequently thought as a response to Rawls' "justice as fairness" for the reason that it is a theory of extremes in comparison. "Whilst Rawls uses the original position to generate a model of fairness, he, does not take critically the distinction between persons since it extremely limits people's rights to utilize their own natural and social possessions" [5]. Robert Nozick's "Entitlement Theory" establishes a system of distribution that permits for holdings to be attained as well as transferred by means of legitimate means. This is in disagreement to a redistributive type of justice, like Rawls', which is an effort to level the difference by taking from a little to give to others who don't have as much. Nozick's form of distribution consists of the respect for people as well as their holdings by means of allowing the free market to be a basis of society. Thereby, the government's role in the economic sector would be minimal, allowing for increased productivity levels for those that engage in the free market. The rights of the citizens, and of legal aliens, of a liberal democratic state should not be infringed upon through the use of taxation or illegitimate transfers of holdings; self-ownership is a right that all people in a liberal (the broad sense) state could agree on. Taxation is a form of forced labor by Nozick's account. Rawls' would argue that taxation is fundamental in maintaining public institutions and goods that benefit all in some cases and those in most need. "Taxation would provide those most needy with a base-needs minimum. Nozick's objection to redistribution is that it uses some people as "means to other people's ends" This derives from Immanuel Kant's notion that we should not "treat others as means to our own or other people's ends, but as ends in themselves."[6] I agree with Nozick that taxation for re-distributive purposes is forced labor because it treats people as means; taxes also pay for street light, and the police and defense. These are things that we all benefit from; therefore some taxes (though forced) are beneficial to society as a whole and thus should be implemented. The involuntary transfer from the richer to the poorer caused by taxation is a violation of a person's rights, but if it can be proven that the taxes they pay are advantageous to their own purposes then some might consider voluntarily paying taxes. I think the problem arises when fairness is being questioned. Fairness is hard to come by when taxation is being argued. It wouldn't be fair for some have to pay more for the same service that others pay less. Those that do not have the means would argue that taxing the rich more is fair. Hence, the raising and lowering of taxes, alternates with the change of parties heading this nation in particular. When speaking of how Rawls and Nozick have different view points their ideas of the "separateness of persons," Adam Swift says: "What if I am one of the people made unhappy for the sake of other people's happiness"[6]. This is a question we must consider when we have worked hard to attain whatever holdings we own and tax season comes around to trim the fruits of our labor. That is not to say that we should not give to the poor, in fact I believe charity is a virtue and that it is a voluntary action and should be done without government mandate. Swift gives three categories on what Nozick believes might be the possessions of individuals: (a) their bodies, (b) land, minerals, etc.; and (c) the products made by combining the two. There is little dispute on whether we own our selves, and what we make with our bodies, but the question of land is not so simple. Land is not an extension of us; we do not enter this world with property rights (ostensibly). However we can inherit land from our descendants or friends or others in legitimate ways. The three principles that make up Nozick's entitlement theory have come under much scrutiny by other philosophers. Those principles are: initial acquisition, voluntary transfer, and rectification. A criticism to the initial acquisition is that history tells us that indigenous peoples previously inhabited many colonized lands, thus they were the original owners of their particular land. For that reason it is difficult to say whether the colonists legitimately fulfilled the first principle. Even if colonists did not have initial acquisition of the land, then their other option was to attain it in voluntary transfer; I for one am skeptical on the legitimacy of the acquisition of colonized lands (especially America). In the case of acquisition through rectification, there has been so much land swapping (legitimate and illegitimate) through the course of civilization that it makes it terribly difficult to grant land to people whose ancestors were robbed of land. Assuming that people had been practicing Nozick's three principles of acquisition, we could have a fair system of land entitlement. However, though I think his principles are effective in theory, it is not plausible for such a system of acquisition to take place in the world today. Proponents of Utilitarianism would argue that through Nozick's principles of acquisition, many people could end up impoverished while a minority own most of the land. Thus total utility would not be maximized. The potential outcome of a society where few own the land would be something similar to serfdom in Europe during the middle ages. However, Nozick's view spawns from a variation of Locke's claim that people may appropriate property just as long as enough and as good is left for others. Nozick does not believe that few should own all the land; in fact he believes that a person shouldn't claim vast amounts of land without consideration for others. In the attempt to attain equality, income is redistributed to close the gap between the rich and poor. For an institution that provides fair equality of opportunity, the fairness of taxation can be debated. According to Nozick, "Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor. Some persons find this claim obviously true: taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another's purpose."[7] He believes that this redistribution of income is a violation of human liberty, which can be considered as forced labor. Although the process alleviates economic inequalities, it does not eliminate other morally arbitrary factors and even jeopardizes basic human rights. Rawls might argue that under social contract, a rational being is behind the veil of ignorance and will favor taxation that result in a maximin distribution. However, the decision assumes situation involving grave risks, in which decisions might or might not cohere with preferences. On the other hand, rationality correlates with the notion that choices do cohere with preferences. Therefore, rationality cannot be associated with situations involving risk aversion. For two individuals of equal social advantage and natural endowment Democratic equality can also be unreasonable since it does not account for personal decisions. One can be ambitious and productive, while the other one lazy and unmotivated can receive same equality of opportunity. In a society where all individuals lose the drive to work and succeed, no one can benefit. When only certain members of the society are expected to support others, equality and justice can still be attained, but maximization of social goods is prevented. This idea is tied in with acts of giving and sharing, enforced through personal decision, which can interrupt the distribution system. However, restrictions on such acts would be a fundamental violation of the liberty principle. The ideas set forth by Rawls influential book A Theory of Justice received considerable praise and attention from the scholastic community. As with all publications, Rawls' work has been critiqued by other philosophers. The most prominent objection to Rawls' concept of justice, and the only area I would criticize, is the difference principle. As a libertarian, Robert Nozick gives one of the most well-known arguments in opposition to difference principle. Nozick argued in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia that equality through fair distribution will indefinitely intrude on civilian liberty. If a beneficial asset has been acquired through legitimate means, then according to Nozick, the redistribution of set asset would be in violation of justice. Robert Nozick advocates the libertarian approach to social justice. Nozick endorses Locke's theory of natural rights and Locke's understanding of property as materialized labor. The libertarians believe that the government should not try to act as superior agency of social justice and should leave the economy to regulate itself. According to Nozick, any government attempt to implement social justice would be misguided and unjustifiable interference in the process of economic development. According to John Rawls, the principles of justice are whatever would be agreed to by rational, self-interested, and un-envious persons. These people would know that they are to enter a society structured according to their agreement. Nevertheless, these people do not recognize what position they would have and what their innate endowments and interests would be. This hypothetical initial situation Rawls calls the veil of ignorance. According to Rawls justice is fairness and the veil of ignorance would help people to create the terms of a fair social contract. Rawls specifies two principles of social justice: First, equal and maximum feasible liberty for all. Second, power and wealth should be distributed equally except when inequalities would work for the advantage of all and where all would have equal opportunity to attain the higher positions. Robert Nozick a Harvard professor, who began with the premise that people have certain basic moral rights, which he referred to as "Lockean Rights" taken from political philosopher John Locke, which Nozick seems to take a lot of his inspiration from. Nozick's theory of economic justice is described in detail in his "Entitlement Theory". "A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding." "A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding." "No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of (a) and (b)." The distribution of goods in a society is just if all are entitled to the holdings they possess [3]. Nozick generally advocates a structure in which there are limited property rights, with the government's role being the protection of these property rights. The property rights usually donot include taxation for another purpose, he say that the sole purpose of tax is to collect funds essential to protect property rights. "In Nozick's theory itself, there seems no apparent reason to provide strong authorized protection to property rights which have arisen during violations of the just principles of acquisition as well as transfer" [4]. The entire principle of distributive justice tends to highlight the fact that a distribution can be considered just if each and every person is allowed to the assets they own under the distribution. The Entitlement Theory holds a strong position to the principles of justice in acquisition as well as transfer. In this theory the principle of justice's main purpose is to identify fair contracts while excluding theft, fraud, etc. The principle is intended to govern the possessing of exclusive property rights in the material world. For the explanation of the above mentioned principals, Nozick uses John Locke's point of view that everybody owns themselves and, by assimilating one's labors with the world, self-ownership is capable of producing ownership of a number of parts of what he calls the material world. Nozick comes a to a conclusion that what is important regarding mixing our labor along with what he calls the material world is that by doing this , we are most likely to raise the value of it, thus it can be said that self-ownership can be the cause of ownership of the external world in a number of cases. Rawls theory of justice is based on a system of justice that will definitely bring fairness as well as moral equality. Rawls wants to avoid reducing justice to a matter of "society utility." His common conception is that each and every social primary goods, liberty as well as opportunity, income and wealth, along with the bases of self-respect, are to be distributed uniformly except an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods are the gain of the least preferential. [1] Rawls' theory, which he refers to as "Justice as Fairness" is an example of a social contract theory. Rawls' theory is well known as a liberal theory, which meant that he is in support of a society which works to help out the less privileged individuals. Below are the important points of his theory: Rawls claims that the original position is just an idea to help the discussion. People ought to picture themselves without any government and logically discuss what kind of government may possibly be supported by means of a social contract as well as achieve justice. Rawls uses the position not to give good reason for the authority of some specific government, but to a certain extent to attempt to figure out what essential principles ought to govern a well planned society at the time it is set up. To conclude Rawls pictures a society that is not too unlike from our own Rawls suggests that a person is capable of being rational concerning their self-interest. This may lead to unfair tax and property distribution, in other words unfair distribution of wealth. A person who works only for self always only has a plan to get what they want out of life. Such a person knows exactly what they want to make their plan successful. A person for the majority part is according plan during their lives, even if they are by no means entirely successful. If a person like that one mentioned above designs society , Rawls figures that they may only design a society that possibly will only and only help them with their own individual plan, an thus not care for the needs of others thus resulting in unfair distribution of wealth , property and tax . According to Rawls, this would not in anyway result in a just society. Rawls says that if a person is in the veil of ignorance it may very well be based on their plan of society on the maximin rule. The concept is that because a person does not really know where they stand in the real world; have to be ready to end up being anyone. There are many different societies where the people in the original position may perhaps design, so every person will desire to choose the one society that gives the alternative that is the least bad, meaning they will pick the society that has its least lucky individuals in the least ill-fated situation. Rawls suggests a straightforward way to comprehend the original position: suppose two people have only one piece of cake to share between them by means of cutting it into two pieces. They both like the cake very much and would like as big a piece as possible. They come to an agreement that only one of them will cut the cake once whereas the other will get to select one of the two pieces. This gives ample guarantee that the cake will be shared in a fair manner. The above mentioned example gives a clear understand of the maximin rule. If we see this rule carefully it can be said that property and tax must be dived equally among the people by the government. Overall, it really seems to be quite a complicated theory nonetheless a more balanced theory than the other two. Whereas for a just society where property and tax is given consideration Nozick gives the self-ownership argument: 1. People own their own selves. 2. The world is originally owned by no one. 3. You can obtain complete rights over an uneven share of the world, if you do not negatively affect others. 4. It is comparatively easy to obtain absolute rights over an unequal share of the world. 5. If a certain private property has been appropriated, what is known as free market in capital as well as labor is ethically needed. Nozick's theory completely functions with a concept of liberty; they support free exchange as well as laissez-faire markets without consideration to the outcomes. He gives importance to freedom over all other values as well as considers property rights as being more important then any other social provision. Nozick distinctively supported the claim that no state more widespread than a minimal state. A state that protects it's own individuals from force, fraud, as well as thievery, it also enforces all important contracts but does very little or nothing expect this, this is morally acceptable, but he also believed that a state like the above mentioned one can be justified. In line with this argument, his refutation of taxation is not unconditional. He permits taxation which is necessary in the funding of activities of the minimal state. He does, nevertheless, mean to show that taxation of one's earnings from labor for any reason except giving funds to the minimal state-taxation to fund things like welfare programs, social insurance, and the arts, scientific research, ect, is morally dishonest. Therefore, his arguments, if they are successful give us a general critique of taxation as such. Nozick clearly defines what he means to say when he is introducing his argument of taxation: "Taxation of income from labor is on equivalence with forced labor" [2]. This argument is Nozick's best known opposition to taxation as well as the one he gives most importance to ; he also has a gave a different as well as philosophically more basic objection that such taxation is incompatible with self-ownership. Conclusion In the above given discussion the comparison of both Rawls and Nozick distributive justice theories are given. Each theory is seen in light of property and tax. I believe Rawls theory is probably the best and most fair, and seems to allow for some flexibility. I think his concept of liberties and inequalities makes sense. I like when Rawls says that we shouldn't have the liberty to just do whatever we want, nor to have or keep absolutely everything. I'm sure some would argue the old expression "possession is nine tenths of the law". I say, "Not when it doesn't belong to you". I could take this whole topic and turn it in to a religious sermon, and how God owns everything and we as humans own nothing however, I will refrain from that because that's not the focus here. Anyway, from what I've learned so far I like Rawls theory the best. Different circumstances may require different courses of action to reach ultimate justice. I believe this to be a salient point. Finally, through this assignment I have truly learned something I feel is invaluable in my own personal self, and that is this. Endnotes 1. faizlawjournal.blogspot.com/2007/01/john-rawlss-theory-of-justice.html retrieved on 18 November 2007 2. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic. 3. Robert E. Goodin, Philip Pettit 1997; Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology retrieved from books.google.com/booksisbn=1557868425 on 18 November 2007 4. Shaw, W. H, Barry, V 2004; Moral Issues in Business, Ninth Edition. Wadsworth, 5. Sterba, James P 1995; Contemporary Social And Political Philosophy. United States: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 6. Swift, Adam2001; Political Philosophy: A Beginners' Guide for Students and Politicians. Great Britain: Polity Press, 7. www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9760.00046 retrieved on 18 November 2007 Read More