By comparing the views of John Rawls and Robert Nozick we can understand the similarities and differences on how we can determine what people deserve in society. Of course, there are flaws with both of their thinking, but I will point out why I believe Robert Nozick’s faults will bring dangerous consequences to this society if they were to be applied.
While discussing distributive justice the name John Rawls was spoken of. John Rawls who is an American Political Theorist published his most known work “A theory of Justice” in 1971. Rawls wanted to emphasize libertarianism which is his political philosophy. John Rawls’ theory flows with a libertarian view on respecting personal freedom which he grounds in a social contract. Of course, every person has a bias in what they do in their lives; therefore, how can one concur to a “social contract”? John Rawls suggests that we should partake in a “veil of ignorance”. The “Veil of Ignorance” keeps people from knowing our own vested interests with respect to considerations of justice. By being oblivious to our issues at hand, we can more consider how our society should operate and function as a whole.
There are two main principles of justice that support John Rawls “Veil of Ignorance” and form the structure for the real world.
1. According to Rawls, the first principle simply requires that certain sorts of rules,” those defining basic liberties, apply to everyone equally and that they allow the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all.” (Rawls 56)
a. Principles of equal basic liberty is there to ensure that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. It is Johns hope that everyone can enjoy the maximum liberty possible without intruding upon the freedom of others.
2. According to Rawls, the difference principle “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are A) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and B) attached to positions and offices open to all.” (Rawls 302)
a. This should ensure everyone has an opportunity to equally prosper in a just society. If there are any differences in social and economic inequalities then, whoever is prosperous should help the ones who are worse off and vice versa with advantages as well. If one prospers, everyone should prosper as well.
What I enjoy about Rawls theory is that it is realistic, down to earth and could be achieved. It gives one the opportunity to have an unbiased and fair approach at one’s society and to go about it. By having a “veil of ignorance”, the foundation for a just society could began. John Rawls has provided a way for everyone to control and ensure complete happiness by placing moral obligations on people to be fair and be just to better their society. By believing in John Rawls everyone understands that fairness is the essence of justice.
A critic of John Rawls is a theorist by the name of Robert Nozick who is known for his book that he published called the “Anarchy, State and Utopia”. In this book Nozick states that
John Rawls in fact contradicts his views on liberty and difference principles (Corlett 6). Nozick believed, that if a person acquired their holdings through original acquisition, just transfer or rectification then their holdings are in fact just. (Nozick 2013) Robert Nozick had three main principles that were extremely different from John Rawls, but they supported his Justice theory:
1. A principle of justice in acquisition- everyone is entitled to something in life (an example that was brought up in class was natural resources) like natural resources if they were owned before by anyone.
2. A principle of justice in transfer- everyone is entitled to something that is transferred to them through a legitimate transfer from someone who has acquired it through a legitimate transfer or through original acquisition. Nozick was not a big fan of taxation because it is not voluntarily is the sense of people had a choice to pay it if they wanted to or not.
3. A principle of rectification of injustice- everyone is entitled to their holdings or property that have been dealt the hand of unfair justice as a form of compensation for their time and hardships.
Robert Nozick believed that justice is displayed as an entitlement for everyone.
It is very clear that both John Rawls and Robert Nozick had a major difference in opinions when it comes to their theories on Justice. It very much resembles our political party issues on Democrats advocating for the wealthy to spread their money down to the poor, and the Republicans advocating for tax breaks and keeping the government as far as possible from their capital and wealth. If one were to take a look at America today and see how we as a country are shifting to Nozick’s theory of justice; for some will shock and for some it will amaze. By losing your job it was your fault and that is something you deserved and by you becoming successful is was through your hard work and relentless achievements. These differences we face will eventually lead to a denial of liberty in which we see today where the poor are living on the sides of the road, underneath bridges, moving place to place wondering where their next hot meal will come from. Due to them being poor they cannot afford good legal representation and they cannot afford to get a good education in which the rich can just pay for. These issues and problems I have stated above keep pushing the divide between the rich and poor further and further away from the grasp of society. I strongly believe that we as humans must stick together and we all deserve to be treated as equals. I endorse John Rawls theory on justice. By having a veil of ignorance, we can allow for a fair and just society that will promote the general welfare and unity for everyone rich or poor.