Economic Justice Theories of Nozick and Rawls - Essay Example

Nozick and Rawls theories of economic justice Introduction Based on the two eminent philosophers Nozick and Rawls, thetheory of economic justice of 1970s attempts to find a solution concerning the disruptive justice by embracing the most usual tools of social interception. One of the philosophers came up with what is termed as the justice of fairness. According to Rawls, the society can only achieve its objectives through the principle of reconciliation, liberty and equity. The main concern about the theory of justice is to account for the issues of justice and generate the best alternative results to people who face unjustified situations. The main agenda of the justice principle is to enhance fairness to society associated by conducts of injustices. The theory of economic injustice explains about the need to mitigate scarcity and altruistic desires affecting communities instead referring to fair choices that repel about societal ignorance by enhancing communal corporation and sorting to alternatives that can easily liberate from vices such as utilitarianism1. Despite Rawls’ theory of justice remaining popular for centuries, Nozick who drew a publication has brought similar claims that narrow to reconstruct societal injustices by emphasizing that status ultimately brings about bonding in social life. Nozick argues that Rawls theory was an intrinsic attempt to harmonize the situation of fairness amongst individuals who are constrained by factors of economic capitalism2. According to Nozick’s theory, he supports Rawls’ claim that injustice is mainly enhanced by difference in hierarchies where people who are rank least in the system withstand the worst of Marxist capitalism. While letting their argument to a similar perception, both Robert and Rawls have given clarification concerning societal injustices. Despite the fact that the two philosopher followed different directions while trying to clarify about the meaning of injustices, both arguably agreed that justice is a system where individuals should deliver performances on exactly what they are expected to tackle definite issues. Without indulging comprehensively into other sections of injustice system, Rawls clarifies injustice as a state of unfairness that is mainly attributed to when members of the society deviates from issues that necessitate rightful governing principles. However to achieve justice, the two philosophers have suggested that governing a society can be made better if the social, societal system is incorporated in the governmental structures3. Nozick’s theory though from distinct origin suggests that if philosophers get governing opportunity, the societal ruling will route the sources of injustice while seeking possible solutions to prevent future occurrence. However, Rawls believes that it is the principle mandate of the citizens to meet and make a decision to eradicate ignorance while focusing on issues that clarify on what is termed as either just or unjust4. According to his publication, Nozick believes to distrust his fellow philosophers because he argues that the principle of justice comes is ordained. Rawls who considers this as a noble lie to influence the trust of the society has discredited this. Consequently, Plato claims either justice or injustices are attributes to natural circumstances thus a citizen should not conform to the social contracts that bind them together as a social institution. Nozick’s opposition to Rawls claim Despite the fact that both Nozick Rawls claims about societal injustices, they adversely disagree on certain factors that amounts to either justice of injustice. According to Nozick’s theory, the rule of injustice is based on three basic assumptions. He explains how things that had no initial ownership can be posed, how the ownership can be made transferable to the next person and the legal quest to correct injustices that have already been in existence. In his critics to Rawls theory, he clarifies that it is untrue that a person deserves something only when he intentionally needs it. Therefore, individuals should concentrate on the development effort and aspiration to seek for talents5. This is on the contrary to Rawls perception who believes that the veil of ignorance is an essential part that allows the dissemination of natural talents and such distribution is one considered as one of the ways that deter the presence of societal injustice. However, Nozick’s theory has not any part of wage inequality. Instead, he talks about constructive inequality as a justifiable assumption, which is far much different from Rawls understanding of justice. In his theory, Rawls argues that must a society to work as a corporation because there are more gains achieved by working together as a team. Moreover, he articulates that a mutual collaboration of individual generates positive results to a formal market economy. Nozick who believes that the economy develops better in the presence of self-made persons with distinct personalities and productivities that do not require communal or joint effort has criticized this6. In defense to his critics, Nozick articulates that, in a corporative environment, the amount of wage per person cannot apply without causing strain to the rest of the group members thus subjecting a reduction to more potential individuals that could have been better when a person is independent. Rawls theory of justice illustrates that the inequality and economic goods only become important when they solve the welfare of unfortunate members of the society. He perceives to harmonize a communal form of civil autonomy of systems that he calls justice. Moreover, he supports the giving of nature an opportunity to determine the decision by so describing this as veil of ignorance7. In a contradictory attempt, Nozick criticizes that the political philosophy does not relate on the set structure of the state while supporting that what is important is the need for a state. Different from Rawls understanding of cooperation, he proposes that the government only be considered important if it successfully provides for the need of security and liberty for the local people. Conclusively, Nozick repels Rawls’s understanding of wage principle. He contradictory claim concerns that all members of the society must benefit from each other where less fortunate seek direct help of successful individuals. Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice According to Robert Nozick’s historical theory of injustice, people should exercise a narrow function protection against the force of injustices. He articulates that, issues such as theft, fraudulent activities or forceful enforcement of contracts are justified. In his opinion, he supports that at no time should state be given chance to violate the rights of the society through by being forced to carry out certain activities or otherwise classified as state injustice8. Based on natural assumptions, Nozick claims that the state has no obligation to redistribute peoples status of mind because such engagements has only attributed to the emergence of currency, which has been the epicenter of control of a welfare commitment. Nozick claims that it is possible to determine a just distribution of goods by referring to the history of that good. If the legitimacy traces in its channel of acquisition then justice exists. However, he confirms that if the legitimacy is not traced then is such a case there is no existence of justice. Moreover, Nozick believes of partnered principles where distribution of goods are said to have undergone justice only it follows some particular channel of distribution. However, this claim could prove futile to some extent because the proof of evidence was only based on the capitalism life, which is driven by consenting adults. In addition, Nozick argues that the state should not be used to effect distribution because it is likely to deter aggression of goods in the supply. Besides, by involving state powers, the mutual power that is meant to help each other cease thus of benefit to the whole group. Tax system in Korea and Drawbacks A number of barriers especially to the foreigners meet taxation system in Korea. The taxation office does not have an interactive site thus subjecting people to rely on annual handout sheets from the state. Some of the barriers brought by this taxation system include foreigners being subjected to pay taxes that are often held by the employers. Besides, the issues of surtax and resident surtax making it quite hard to determine the right value of the income tax return. Consequently, it is associated by various deductions some of which are less meaningful to both natives and the foreigners. Rawls- alternative utilitarianism Rawls argues on the foundation of two main principles utilitarianism. He points out that the majority of members of the society believe in the anarchy of justice. He articulates that the idea of utilitarianism determines individual’s perception while making positive decisions towards the best choices to the society. Rawls rule of utilitarianism has been possibly accepted positively by various societies who believe that the decision is vital in solving uncertainties by giving many options where a person makes a choice. In accordance to the theory of Rawls dispels claims that people involved at the initial stages while effecting utilitarianism has the potential to allocate probabilities. As such, he supports that such people lack the capability of handling probable calculations unless with maximizing utility rule. Consequently, the rule advices that, an individual should avoid groups that they feel are not comfortable to their social life. Whereas, other members of the society just believes it is unusual to embrace utilitarianism as part of social life9. Nozick- egalitarian liberalism American capitalists mainly influenced Nozick philosophical work of liberalism in the 19th century. In his liberal concepts, he dismisses welfare association as championed by Rawls, but embraces the idea of statesmanship, which he believes does not attribute to sense of quality. He supports government legitimacy to the later on the need to advocating better security, liberty and protection of property in case of any violent political situation. However, he was categorical when he stated that the state is not liable on the issues of full time security since it only has an obligation of state watchman-ship, but concluded that the citizens are at liberty to receive adequate security at the expense of state intervention10. Conclusion After extensive coverage about the theory of economic injustice, it has become possible to point out that the two philosophers have done their best in explaining the issues that surround utilitarianism and libertarianism. The paper also explores factors that led to the criticism of Rawls theory by his fellow philosopher Nozick. Moreover, Rawls recognized justice as fairness that also extends to the distribution of goods rightfully acquired while Nozick sees this as technical that is very difficult to ascertain. In a mathematical perspective, the theory illustrates if given enough information one it becomes quite possible to calculate the extent of justice decision, which has been made by someone. In addition, Nozick claims that it is possible to determine a just distribution of goods by referring to the history of that good. If the legitimacy traces in its channel of acquisition then justice exists. In conclusion, both Rawls and Nozick acquired philosophy poses senses of multiple connections toward the realization of justice in an institutionally based psychology. Bibliography: Zajac, Edward. Political economy of fairness. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : MIT Press, 1995. Maffettone Sebastianano. Rawls: an introduction Cambridge, U.K. [u.a.] : Polity, 2010 Frohlich Norman. Choosing justice: an experimental approach to ethical theory. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1992. Read More