Social Justice Issues - Essay Example

Compare and contrast the work of John Rawls and Robert Nozick on social justice.  Introduction John Rawls and Robert Nozick are both philosophers who wrote widely on the subject of social justice and equality in the society. Clark (1994) says that the two academics held varied opinions especially on the subject of social justice in the society. In the 1970’s a number of theories on social justice were advanced but the works of two philosophers stood out and became the focal point of discussions among academics, economists and government bureaucrats. John Rawls advanced his arguments in his work “A theory of Justice”. In this book, Rawls attempts to challenge the widely accepted law of utilitarianism. He argues that justice of an individual is supreme in the society and what is good for the society should not in any way be given priority over an individual’s quest for personal justice and good. (Rawls 1999) On the other hand Robert Nozick advanced his theories that were contained in his book Anarchy state and Utopia. Nozick challenges the views advanced by John Rawls especially on the issue of inequality in the society. Nozick was a strong advocate of less government intervention in the economy. He says that government intervention is the source of suppression of individual rights and this scenario can only be avoided courtesy of a minimalist state.(Nozick 1974) At the heart of the two contrasting theories advanced by the two renowned authors is the critical issue of social justice in the society. Social justice refers to the extent in which everybody in the society is treated fairly and given an equal chance of getting the most out his/her effort (Miller 1976). (Paul 1982, p.151) notes that in the modern world, Robert Nozick’s theories can easily pass for capitalism while Rawls is seen as leaning towards social democracy in the process of economic entitlement. This work will therefore seek to highlight the opinions held by these two philosophers on the subject of social justice and attempt to compare and contrast their views. John Rawls theories on social justice. Veil of ignorance According to Clark (1994, p.77), Rawls strongly advocated for fairness in the society structure where by every individual shapes his/her future. “He takes the position that at the very beginning no individual should know what the future holds or what position one will occupy in the social structure”. Thus one is said to be operating in a sense of darkness or as Rawls terms it a veil of ignorance. Bottom line is that individuals will have the freedom of choice when it comes to a structure in the society that looks at the interest of the disadvantaged or the less fortunate. Rawls argues that it is easier for a person who is free from any bias such as social class to buy the idea of social justice and consequently equality in the society hence the concept of veil of ignorance. According to this author freedom of thought and expression is the basic tenet to the development of social justice. He further observes freedom is even more important than material benefits that are advanced to both the rich and the poor in the society. Thus according to Rawls, it is better to be poor and have freedom rather than be rich without freedom. (Clayton and Williams 2004) Maximising welfare of the least privileged Rawls (1999, p.77-81) points out that government intervention is essential so as to ensure equitable distribution of resources especially to the economically disadvantaged. In this case, the less privileged in the society are entitled to a bigger share of the available resources than those who have abundant resources. Rawls says that this is what is just and ethical. Those who have less are given more to ensure equity in the society. It is for this reason that he opposes a free economy since it does not support the cause of equality and justice in the society. In his view, the only sure way of ensuring social justice in the society is through government intervention in the distribution of resources. Consequently taxation is essential if the welfare of the less privileged is to be catered for through wealth distribution. This involves taxing the rich and using the money to improve the welfare of the economically disadvantaged. The importance of the original position According to Miller (1976), Rawls describes the original position as the state zero where an individual is free from any bias that may affect his/her view of justice in the society. He says that a person in the original position is more likely to accept the principles of a free and just society. Two theories emerge from the idea of the original position. One advocates for the equal awarding of duties and rights in the society. The second principle says that injustice in the society whether social or economic can only be just if there is an alternative gain especially for the less privileged population. Nozick’s views on social justice. Minimalist state Nozick held the opinion that every individual in the society is entitled to some basic rights and any state intervention automatically leads to an abuse of these rights. Nozick argues that the government should play a very minimal role in ensuring justice in the society (Nozick 1981). In fact he points out that the state should be restricted to ensuring fair play through its basic role of providing security, curbing fraud and provision of other public goods. According to Nozick any other state role will be an abuse of individual rights and this leads to injustice in the society. Nozick strongly opposes the idea of a welfare state and says that the government should not do all the things that individuals expect it to. Private property. Nozick is a strong proponent of private property. He points out that individuals should be free to own property anywhere and sell it at will. The same property owner may also opt to donate it to charity and it can also be inherited by family, friends or successors. Nozick argues that emphasis on private property encourages competition and hard work in the society hence there is faster development. He chides proponents of the welfare state as lazy and is quick to point out that this breeds laziness and not social justice in the society. Distribution of income Nozick (1974) is fiercely opposed to the idea of equality in the society achieved through taxation. He says that taxing the rich so as to improve the welfare of the poor as a means of achieving social justice in the society is retrogressive and naïve. It is hard and next to impossible to improve the living condition of one person based on the hard work and intelligence of another. Nozick is of the view that equality in the society should be achieved through philanthropic gestures of the rich towards the poor. He also opposes the theory advanced by Rawls that the less privileged members of the society should enjoy more that their share of benefits from the available social and economic opportunities. The contrast between John Rawls and Robert Nozick’s works on social justice. Justice in income distribution. One major difference between the works of Rawls and Nozick on social justice is the extent to which distribution of income is effective in ensuring equality and justice in the society (Paul 1982). Nozick is opposed to the idea of taxation as a means of spreading wealth in the society and equates it to forced labour. On the other hand Rawls points out that the only way to achieve equality and justice in the society is by taxing the rich and using the returns to improve the welfare of the least privileged in the society. Thus according to Rawls social justice can be achieved in the society through distribution of income while Nozick says that justice in the society can only be achieved courtesy of a free market economy where everyone is allowed to own private property and transfer at will. He says that income distribution in the society is only possible through charity and philanthropy. Nozic concludes an equal society is hard to achieve since the effort put by individuals is different. State intervention Clayton and Williams (2004, p.92-94) argue that Novick is a strong opponent of state intervention while Rawls says that government intervention is critical if justice is to be achieved in the society. “Both philosophers have different views on the role of the state in ensuring social justice”. Robert Nozick says that the role of the state should be limited to ensuring that individual rights and freedom are adhered to in the society. He further suggests that the state should act as an independent arbitrator should there be a conflict between individuals in the society. Nozic says that there can be justice and freedom in the society even in the absence of the state. On the other hand, John Rawls argues that individuals in the society have competing interest and if left alone the less privileged in the society will not get a fair share of the available resources. He therefore suggests that to ensure justice for all in the society, then the least privileged must be protected by the state. Justice in holding. Nozick (1974) advances the idea that justice can only be achieved in the society if nobody is allowed to own anything in the society except through hard work and legal exchange. He equates holding to what an individual owns in the society which should not be taken away except through legal exchange with a willing partner. Nozick therefore says that it is wrong for the state to use any means to force an individual to contribute to the well being of the other. “Why should a person who seats by the shores of the ocean all day be allowed to benefit from the sweat of another who spends the whole day in the rough waters fishing” He says that the government is being morally unjust by poaching from the hardworking to reward the lazy. Rawls however holds a different opinion. He argues that there are some individuals who are naturally disadvantaged in the society and it is only fair that the state looks after their welfare if it is to be seen as providing justice to the least privileged and disadvantaged. However Rawls concedes that a perfectly equal society is difficult to achieve and consequently some level of inequality is necessary to create competition and spur economic development. A comparison of Robert Nozick and John Rawls work on social justice. Although these two academics were more often on the opposite sides of the fence, they agreed on some key ideas. Inequality is a necessary evil Both Nozick and Rawls agree that some level of inequality is necessary if the society is to achieve meaningful progress (Clark 1994). Rawls who was initially opposed to Nozick’s theory on equality in the society later admitted that absolute equality in the society is not possible. However he says that the society should not accustomed to the winner take it all principle since continued injustice in the society is a source of conflict in the society. Redistribution of wealth and historical injustices. Rawls is a strong advocate of distribution of wealth so as to create social justice in the society. While Nozick is opposed to this idea in favour of Justice in holding, he concedes that in some circumstances redistribution of wealth with the aim of solving past injustices is not only inevitable but essential if social justice is to be achieved in the current society. Social institutions. According to Miller (1976), both writers also agree on the importance of social institutions such as the state to regulate the affairs of individuals in the society. Nozick says the state is crucial in enforcing laws and providing security. Rawls says the state is critical if the less privileged in the society have to be taken care of courtesy of a welfare state. Both writers also view people as ends rather than a means to an end. Conclusion. The work above has attempted to explore the works of two legends in philosophy and their views on social justice. What is clear is that both are advocates of social justice in the society. However the means of getting this justice is what results in conflicting theories. At the heart of the discussion is the all important idea of achieving social justice in the society. Nizock advocates for minimal state intervention while Rawls is in favour of state intervention so as to guard the interest of the less privileged members of the society. Amidst these conflicting ideas both philosophers agree on some salient issues. For instance they agree that perfect equality cannot be achieved in the society and inequality is a necessary evil that creates economic competition and growth in the society. Reference: Clark, BJ 1994, Social justice without socialism, Harvard University press, Cambridge, MA. Clayton, M & Williams, A 2004, Social Justice, Wiley Blackwell, West Sussex. Nozick, R 1994, The Nature of rationality, Princeton university press, New Jersey. Nozick, R 1974, Anarchy State and Utopia, Basic Books, Jackson TN. Miller, D 1976, Social Justice, Clarendon press, Gloucestershire. Paul, J 1982, Reading Nizock, Essays on Anarchy, State and Utopia, Blackwell, West Sussex. Rawls, J 1999, A theory of social Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Read More