The Distribution of Primary Goods by Nozick and Rawls - Essay Example

Rawls and Nozick Q4. Rawls argue (pp. 73-4, 103-4) that it is unjust to allow distribution of primary goods on the basis of natural assets. Nozick (pp. 213ff) argues against Rawls. What is Rawls argument? What is Nozicks most effective argument against Rawls? Who is correct, Rawls or Nozick? Defend your answer carefully and in detail. Nozick and Rawls offer differing perspectives about the distribution of primary goods on the basis of natural assets. Nozick upholds individual initiative and abhors interference in the private lives of individuals through instruments of the State. He contends that if individuals have acquired their share in the distribution in a fair manner, without violating the rights of other people, then the distribution is just. Since such acquisitions are made using the natural talents that individuals possess, he argues that injustice cannot be contended in the allocation and use of natural talents. The system whereby such distributions have resulted are the result of gifts or acquisitions made on the basis of individual initiative, which is just, as a result the distribution resulting out of it is also just. Rawls however offers a different view on the distribution of primary assets, viewing it on the basis of its end outcome. He contends that since the outcome is an unjust distribution of primary assets in society, it is morally repugnant and must be redressed through the input from social and legal establishments by providing equality in opportunity for access to those resources to all individuals. Nozick’s theory of justice is based upon the “entitlement theory of holdings”, wherein the question of justice in acquisition is determined by the manner in which the property is acquired rather than the final outcome itself. Property may be transferred either through gift giving or by free exchange selling. Both these methods are undertaken voluntarily and there is no coercion at all that is involved in one person passing on a property to another. (Nozick, 151). He argues that when land does not belong to anyone at first, then a just acquisition process would allow someone to own it legitimately and claim it as theirs, so long as they do not make anyone else worse off in the process. Nozick’s theory of justice is therefore a system of pure procedural justice, where the important aspect to be considered is the process and system by which distributions are made, rather than the final outcome of that distribution. When access to goods and resources is made a function of a person’s natural intelligence and ability, this is in accordance with a system of natural justice so that the rights of all individuals are respected. Nozick states that a right to life is not “a right to whatever one needs to live, other people may have rights over these other things. At most, a right to life would be a right to have or strive for whatever one needs to live, provided that having it does not violate anyone else’s rights. (Nozick, 179). On this basis, Nozick’s argument is that irrespective of the consequences, if the system within which a distribution takes place is just, then the distribution resulting from that procedure is also just. Rawls however, focuses not on the system that produces the distribution, but its final result. He argues that applying a system of natural liberty, initial distributions are regulated by arrangements that presuppose (a) a background of equal liberty and (b) a free market economy.(Rawls 72). The premise is that everyone has access to all advantaged social positions. But as Rawls points out, this may not necessarily be true in reality, where the distribution of assets is strongly influenced by “natural and social contingencies.:(Rawls 72). As a result, the glaring injustice generated by the system of natural justice is that it allows distributive shares to be influenced by factors such as prior distributions of income and wealth or chance contingencies such as accident and good fortune. His argument against natural justice therefore tends to focus on the end outcomes rather than the process of acquisition of justice itself. Nozick questions the basis upon which Rawls dismisses natural assets that produces differences between people as being morally arbitrary, unless they can be justified (Nozick 223). Nozick contends that since Rawls leaves out any kind of mention about how people have chosen to develop their own natural assets, this in effect, demonstrates that Rawls’ theory does not rest upon the foundation of individual autonomy. In a free society, distribution occurs on the basis of local exchanges between individuals, who may distribute their holdings as they wish. According to Rawls, since the rules regarding distribution of natural talents may not be just, they should not be taken into account in a distribution. But Nozick contests this position, arguing that it is not necessarily true to assume that a person is entitled to something only if he also is entitled to the talents that made the acquisition possible. He states: “It neednt be that the foundations underlying desert are themselves deserved, all the way down” (Nozick 225). Since life generally comprises individual exchanges that are intended to benefit the parties to the exchange, usually there is not much concern about the handicaps of others or just deserts. But according respect to individual freedom and the right to be free from coercion is a moral precept that must be taken into account in the formulation of justice. When viewing natural talents from Rawls’ perspective, Nozick contends that Rawls appears to be viewing natural assets as part of a collective pool (Nozick 214) that is available for redistribution among members of society in the manner that may be deemed to be equitable. He argues that this view leans towards a utilitarian outlook on natural assets, which contradicts Rawls’ purported support of free enterprise and individual initiative on the basis of utilization of talents. Nozick contends that possession of natural assets is not morally repugnant just because they produce differences between the most fortunate and less fortunate. Rather, ignoring the rights of individuals to make their own decisions and be free from coercion in making their choices about gifting or transfer of their assets, would be a dangerous violation of their autonomy. “Whether or not peoples natural assets are arbitrary from a moral point of view, they are entitled to them, and to what flows from them.” (Nozick, 2006). As a result, Nozick argues in favor of people deserving (a) the acquisition, entitlement or rewards they secure and (b) the underlying talents, abilities and skills that made such an acquisition possible. Rawls however does not agree with this two part argument, he contends that the reward may be deserved and therefore just but the means or entitlement that made the reward possible may not necessarily be just. Rawls argues against historical entitlement, because free market arrangements allow for distribution of abilities and talents on the basis of a natural lottery, but such an outcome is “arbitrary from a moral perspective.” (Rawls, 74). On this basis, he contends that all social values, such as liberty and opportunity, income and wealth are bases of self respect and they must be distributed equally, unless an unequal distribution of these values would work out to everyone’s advantage. (Rawls 62). The clear difference between Nozick and Rawls is that while the former views historical entitlement as just if the system used in achieving such a distribution was fair, but according to the latter, the final outcome of the distribution is unjust from a moral standpoint. Nozick concedes that there is some merit in Rawls’ arguments. Where historical entitlement is concerned, the distribution that would result from a natural system of allocation would likely follow certain distribution patterns, because it is based upon voluntary exchanges or gifts, hence it would give rise to injustices, in that all members of society would not be represented in the allocations (Nozick, 217). But the basic issue that would be important on the basis of Nozick’s arguments is the manner in which such acquisitions have occurred. If the system by which the distribution has occurred has not caused a violation of anyone’s rights, and if the transfers have been made on a free and fair basis, then it would be just, even if the final outcome is that all members of society are not represented in the allocations. Nozick however, contests Rawls’ argument that equality of opportunity seeks to eliminate some of the social disparities existing between individuals to place them on a more equal footing; hence it is more acceptable, especially from a moral perspective that seeks to uphold and enhance individual rights. Nozick illustrates his discord on Rawls’ arguments through his opposition to redistributive taxation, where income of richer individuals is taxed and used to find programs for the advancement of less privileged individuals. According to Nozick, redistributive taxation is like forced labor, where one individual is forced to work in order that another may benefit from it. (Nozick, 169). A just system should rather allow individuals to direct their own labor and give it to whomsoever they please. (Nozick 238). Hence Nozick’s argument is that interference by political and legal institutions into rearranging existing distributions may in effect, constitute an encroachment on the principle of self ownership. In response to this argument, Rawls could contend that people agree to such a redistribution under the first principle where every person is to have equal rights. Hence, while this may not constitute extreme coercion, nevertheless to some degree, it amounts to not allowing individuals to profit fully from the fruits of labor but instead, distribute it possibly against their will, to others less fortunate. A natural distribution is one that arises out of the natural gifts and talents possessed by individuals, so that those who are smarter, more intelligent and gifted are able to gain resources. Forcing a redistribution of such assets and resources would not only produce an unjust result by coercing individuals who have gained their resources through gifts or their own skills to share it with others who have done nothing to gain such resources, including gaining them through gifts. This would violate self determination and individual rights. It would also seriously hamper the initiative individuals possess to work hard towards securing assets and resources. On the basis of an assessment of arguments offered by Rawls and Nozick, it would appear however, that there may be more merit in Rawls’ contentions, because ultimately, it is the final outcome that will determine whether there is justice existent in society at a particular time. Nozick offers a very effective argument against Rawls, i.e, the hampering of individual initiative and the principle of self ownership. But there are some significant aspects that may be seen to undermine Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice, based upon a natural distribution of primary assets and resources of society without the intervention of political or legal institutions. Firstly, while it may be argued that the system of distribution of primary assets is just, in practice there will always be unjust transactions occurring in society. Therefore incorporating Nozick’s ideas about minimal State intervention, will only result in a perpetration of this injustice. Action will have to be taken by the police to deal with unjust transactions, hence state and legal institutions need to play an important role if justice is to be assured. Secondly, Nozick argues that the first principle constitutes an “acknowledgment of the absolute weight of liberty” (Rawls 63). But individual liberty cannot be accorded so much importance that it disregards the maximizing of social and economic advantages to others in society. Not all unjust transactions can be detected, or when detected, compensation be provided proportionately. But allowing such unjust transactions to continue unabated on the grounds that the process to establish distribution of resources was inherently just, means that justice will never ever reach some individuals. Thirdly, Nozick’s theory of entitlement is based upon the notion of all or nothing, i.e, either the entire distribution of holdings is just or it is not. As a result, a system that is in place, where holdings are comprised of gifts or acquisitions made on a voluntary basis, will continue ad infinitum as a just system. But even a single unjust transaction within the distribution would undermine how just the entire holding is. Such injustices can only be addressed through legal or police action, but Nozick’s advocating minimal intervention would mean that such injustices would perpetuate. It would also mean in some instances, that individuals whose ancestors were deprived of the opportunity to acquire primary assets would be placed in a permanent position of disadvantage as compared to others, and would never be able to reverse or question the inherent injustice of a system that leaves them on its fringes through no fault of their own. All these arguments support Rawls’ argument that a failure to redistribute assets or to at least provide social and economic safeguards that can ensure equal access to opportunities for all individuals irrespective of their background, is inherently anathema from a moral perspective. An immoral outcome cannot pose effective grounds for a just outcome. It is vital that a sliding scale of justice would need to be introduced to apply Nozick’s theory, if instances of true injustice within it are to be addressed. But Nozick’s theory has been formulated in such a manner that it does not allow a sliding scale to be introduction. The underlying premise is that the entire distribution of primary holdings is just; this would eliminate all contentions of unfairness or disparity on the distribution of assets. The substantial part of Nozick’s argument is that interference with private lives of individuals must be avoided at all costs, hence questioning unjust distributions is outside the scope of Nozick’s arguments. The arguments offered by Rawls however, do allow for some scope of redressal of injustice in the distribution of primary assets. Rawls advocates the use of political and legal establishments in ensuring a more equitable distribution of assets by allowing equality of opportunity to the extent possible. This would help to tackle those specific instances where a holding may be unjust, without affecting other holdings which have been acquired through just and equitable means. This would also ensure that some means of access to these primary resources is provided to those existing on the fringes of society. Nozick’s argument does not allow for basic adjustments through a sliding scale of justice, due to the need to preserve the status quo and eliminate scope for people to complain about how some individuals are so rich while others are so poor. Rawls’ arguments on the other hand, do allow some scope for adjustments in the interest of justice to all individuals. Comparing the two arguments, it would therefore appear that there is greater scope for justice under Rawls’ propositions, as contrasted with Nozick’s arguments. While Nozick undoubtedly offers a powerful argument that forcible redistribution of assets by the State could result in a reduction of individual initiative, this does not justify his entire argument that reinforces the status quo on the existing distribution of holdings. Works Cited: * Nozick, Robert. “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, Basic Books * Rawls, John. “A Theory of Justice”, Harvard University Press, 2005. Read More