Theory of Justice: Anarchy, State and Utopia - Essay Example

Theory of Justice Q4. Rawls argues (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. Ans: Rawls contends that the distribution of primary assets on the basis of natural assets may be inherently unjust. He contends that “no one deserves his place in the distribution of natural endowments, any more than one deserves one’s initial starting place in society.” (Rawls, 2005: 104). He argues against the distribution of assets on the basis of natural assets is unjust unless it is balanced by the difference principle, which would make the disparity in distribution acceptable to everyone. His argument is therefore, that natural assets must not affect the distribution. Nozick however, is in favor of letting assets remain where they have fallen in the natural distribution scheme. He states that “since things come into being already held, ……..there is no need to search for some pattern for unheld holdings to fit…”(Nozick, 1974:219). He also offers the argument that since individuals possess natural talents and skills which they may have used in acquiring a superior position in reference to the distribution of primary assets, the distribution is just if the rights of others have not been violated in the process of acquisition of those primary assets. As detailed further below, it appears that Nozick may have a strong and valid argument that supports the retention of primary assets in their existing distributions. He has argued that Rawls has failed to effectively show that natural assets should not affect the distribution. The underlying premise for Rawls’ contention that natural assets should be taken into account in the distribution of primary assets is that the “outcome is arbitrary from a moral perspective.” (Rawls 74). He states that in respect to the requirement of carers open to talents, there is also a need to append a “further condition of the principle of fair equality of opportunity.” (Rawls 73). He argues that assuming there is a distribution of natural assets, those who are at the same level in terms of talent and ability and are equally willing to use them should have the same opportunities for success, irrespective of their socio-economic class. On this basis, he argues that free market systems will not function towards a just end unless they are set within a “framework of social and legal institutions” (Rawls 73) that will help address the inequalities. But he points out that despite such measures to ensure equality of opportunity for everyone irrespective of social contingencies, the net result may still be unjust, because it permits the distribution of wealth and income “to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents.” (Rawls 74). Hence, Rawls’ argument is that including natural assets should not affect the distribution if a just outcome is to be achieved. The major thrust of his argument is that allowing a free market system to operate in terms of the distribution of natural assets is based upon a lottery-like system, which is morally repugnant. The reason for an arbitrary moral outcome is because it ensures that injustice is always maintained and can never be redressed, dispute setting out an effective framework of social and legal institutions that are geared towards achieving a just outcome. Nozick’s strongest argument against Rawls is that the latter does not effectively show that natural assets should not affect the distribution. He contests Rawls’ argument that the retention of natural talents within a distribution is morally arbitrary. Nozick’s first criticism is that in his argument, Rawls does not take into account the question of how people have chosen to develop their talents. He contends that this line of argument can result in “blocking the introduction of a person’s autonomous choices and actions and their results by attributing everything noteworthy about the person completely to certain sorts of external factors.” (Rawls 214). The denigration of individual autonomy that results seriously undermines Rawls’ theory that purportedly is based upon people’s choices. Nozick then argues further that Rawls does not adequately justify why an assumption is being made that a person’s natural assets are arbitrary from a moral point of view. Rawls has contended that the natural distribution itself is neither just nor unjust, they are simply facts. But the injustice arises in the way that institutions deal with these facts. (Rawls 102). But Nozick contends, “Some of the things he uses he may just have, not illegitimately. It needn’t be that the foundations underlying desert are themselves deserved, all the way down.” (Nozick 225). On this basis, Nozick argues that whether or not a person has these natural assets illegitimately is not the issue at all, in fact it is irrelevant, if people are entitled to have them “Whether or not people’s assets are arbitrary from a moral point of view, they are entitled to them and what flows from them.” (Nozick, 226). In fact, applying a moral perspective to the distribution of assets, it is liberty and freedom from coercion that must form the basis of justice; this would support the view that a person is entitled to his or her natural assets and to what flows from them, so a distribution derived on this basis cannot be arbitrary in a moral sense. Nozick contends that Rawls has in effect, designed the “original position and its choice situation so as to embody and realize his negative reflective evaluation of allowing shares in holdings to be affected by natural assets.” (Nozick, 74). Nozick questions Rawls’ position by arguing, why ignore talents at all? Why should they not be taken into consideration in allowing for the final distribution of assets, especially if those assets have been acquired without trampling on the rights of other people? The argument of morally arbitrary could apply only when some unjust means has been used in achieving the distribution of primary assets. But if individuals have used their natural talents and abilities without interfering with other peoples’ rights, there is no reason to claim there is any element of morally arbitrary in this. Nozick’s argument therefore supports the inclusion of natural talents in the distribution of primary assets. People are entitled to their natural talents, hence they are also entitled to use those talents to improve their position. If their talents are not morally arbitrary, the holdings arising out of those talents are not morally arbitrary either and on this basis, Nozick has contended that the distribution is just. Nozick also argues that Rawls violates the individual autonomy of every person by separating their natural assets from their talents and by treating natural assets as a collective rather than an individual asset. He states: “Rawls’ view seems to be that everyone has some entitlement or claim on the totality of natural assets (viewed as a pool) with no one having differential claims.” (Nozick 228). But Nozick strongly rebuts this aspect of Rawls’ argument, contending that viewing natural assets as a collective pool that can be redistributed in a manner viewed as most equitable would in effect violate the rights of those individuals who possess those assets. In effect, it would amount to using those individuals who are more fortunate as the means for other individuals who are less fortunate. It is nothing more than a form of utilitarianism whereby individual aspirations are submerged into the collective good of the many. The utilitarian position is seriously flawed precisely because it fails to recognize the individuality and separateness of people and treats them as a mere means to a collective end. This would violate moral principles of liberty and freedom by shoving natural assets into a common pool, whereas individuals are rightfully entitled to those assets. Natural talents therefore cannot be factored out of the distribution as Rawls has suggested and Nozick concludes that Rawls has not provided adequate justification or shown why natural talents should not be taken into consideration in the distribution. This is Nozick’s most effective argument against Rawls. His argument also supports individual initiative and free enterprise and favors a minimal role for the State in ensuring justice. Individuals may make use of their talents to improve themselves and artificially forcing them to restrict such development on the basis that their holdings may not be just, just so that they are in a more equivalent position with others less fortunate is not tenable. If the process of arriving at the distribution was inherently fair and did not cause a violation of someone else’s rights, then there is no basis to contend that such possession is unjust, arbitrary or unfair. On an overall basis therefore, on the question of allowing natural talents to also be factored into the distribution of primary assets, Nozick appears to be correct.                                                             Works Cited: *        Nozick, Robert. "Anarchy, State and Utopia",  Basic Books, 1974 *       Rawls, John. "A Theory of Justice",  Harvard University Press, 2005. He argues against the notion of desert, or the idea that those who are better situated deserve greater advantages, irrespective of whether or not they are also advantageous to others. Read More