Free Distributive Justice Essay Sample
|← Malicious Prosecution||The Prison Department →|
Buy Cheap Distributive Justice Essay
Nozick basis uses entitlement theory to analyze distributes justice. His argument is based on three major factors which include the flowing: firstly, justice in the process of acquisition where one has the right to own something that was not previously owned. Secondly, the process of justice in transfer of property rights in case something has been transferred by someone else to you. Finally, entitlement theory involves the process rectification of justice that involves restoring something to the rightful owner. This is done in the case where injustice means were used in acquisition.
In this case, he establishes entitlement theory which focuses on the historical and un-patterned concepts. The theory does not demand the form of distribution which results from acquisitions, methods of transfers as well as rectifications that are to be patterned. Moreover, the theory is correlated with anything that pertains to the end result such as moral merits, needs of the public as well as its usefulness to the society. It further stipulates that people are entitled to specific rights of ownership that are acquired by chance or as gifts. This implies that any form of distribution that does not take into account the pattern that is available or not available, must be provided by the respective society. Moreover, the pattern should not be provided by rules of acquisition, transfer as well as rectification. This implies that the form of distribution should not be in accordance with the established rules.
On the other hand, Rawl’s theory of distributive justice is based on the virtue that the societal coexist for mutual benefit between different members of the society. Although individuals posses different interests, they definitely posses a sense of identity as well as shared interests. In his theory, he focuses on the principles of justice which define the process of appropriation and distribution of various benefits and burdens as a concept of social cooperation. He maintains that justice is one of the most important values in political and basic institutions in the society. This mainly entails institutions that are entitled in regulation of market, family, freedom as well as properties in the society.
In his theory, Rawls states that the representative of the people should not be left worse off in the appropriation of the property. However, Nozick criticizes this argument stating that properties should be left to individuals to make their own decisions. Unfortunately, he does not provide a basis for this argument. He maintains that the concept of appropriation will be violated if an individual appropriates everything that is essential to the society at that particular moment. Similarly, it should ensure that the poor are not exploited as well avoid denying them their basic needs in life. Moreover, one should not be the sole owner. He recommends that one should combine with others and ensure the supply of basic properties. Nozick stipulates that there is a possibility of losing entitlement to something. This may occur in case where one looses something that was initially yours. This can be as a result of developments. For example, drying of up of other waterholes where one remains the sole owner forcing him to share with others.
On the contrary, Rawls takes a different approach to that taken by Nozick. His theory focuses on the end result. He states that the method of choosing principles should be based on a veil of ignorance. This implies that it should be based on calculations that focus on what people end up with. Normally, the amount of property that people ends up with is determined by the set principles. He argues that people do not have any way of choosing what to own as individuals. It is usually a determined by the society. Therefore, he differs with Nozick’s entitlement theory that emphasizes on rules of justice and their development favoring individuals.
Rawls develops a specification situation and process that mark the beginning of deliberation in justice. He further argues that the rules that results from this deliberations normally form the rules of justice. This is a major similarity as Nozick comes up with a similar argument. He states that a specific process must be developed in his entitlement theory. He maintains that whatever form of distribution that result is just. Moreover, each of the two theories specifies the starting point and the overall process that entails transformation. Each distributive result is accepted by the two theories. Thus, the outcome is just and acceptable in both theories. It worth to note that Rawls process of generating principles cannot in itself establish the resulting process principles, it only comes up with the end-result principles. On the contrary, Nozick depicts this as an irony. He argues that this presents a dilemma simply because the process cannot in any case lead to process principles of justice. This cannot occur without holding other related processes.
According to Nozick, there are three sets of justice that define it. These include: how things that are not in case possessed by anyone can be acquired, the process of transferring possessions from one person to another as well as procedures that should be used to rectify injustices that normally arises from violations of possessions by individuals. In addition, Nozick interprets the rights of individuals which include the following; the right of ownership and appropriation of anything that is not owned provided that one leaves enough for other people. This implies that one should consider other people while appropriating anything. Thus, others should not be left worse off.
In his entitlement theory, Nozick sees human beings as the end in themselves. They are also responsible in justifying the process of redistributing goods. However, this is only possible under the condition of consent which forms a key aspect of anarchy, utopia as well as the state. In theory, he also argues that there is no state and any individual must have an effective contract with private individuals who are involved in social services. He maintains that anarchy and capitalism would definitely transform into monarchist mode of state. However, this form of anarchy would however, exists for a short period of time before another stage emerges which he refers to as minimalist.
Rawls also states that social inequalities should not be justified in any case. Rather, there should principles of free and fairness that fosters equality. This would form the fundamental basis of association. Social contract is another important factor that favors principles of fairness and impartiality. This helps to eliminate biasness in the society as well as the huge gap between the rich and the poor in the society. However, Rawls argues, “we agree on these principles without knowing what our positions in the society will be or what idea of the good is”. According to Rawls, no one is disadvantaged or advantaged by the outcome of the principles chosen in whatever case. Sometimes, the outcomes are determined by natural changes as well as social; circumstances.
On the other hand, Nozick argues that whether justice is just or not, it highly depends on how it came about. This is in contrary to justice that is acquired through equality and individual’s need. Thus, the law of distributive justice is entirely dependent on the pattern of distribution that has been established at that particular moment. Nozick states that certain distribution of goods becomes just depending on the pattern that one takes. Thus, the relevance of needs and equality may also be determined by the difference principle. Nozick states that justice is about maintaining and respecting people’s rights. This is in particular to their properties as well as self ownership. People must be given freedom to make independent decisions as well as make decide on what they want to do with what they own. He views every individual as a separate entity whose autonomy must be respected. People cannot be forced to do things they do not agree with. They are ends in themselves. He further states that taking property from people in order to further redistribute it is violation of their rights. On the contrary, taxation is mainly used for redistribution of wealth in the society. For example, taxing Renaldo’s extra money is meant to return the money to the poor fans which according to Nozick are violating his rights to own his property.
As earlier stated, his view is based on the right of ownership. He argues that self ownership is crucial as it allows one to be entitled with what he or she produces. Therefore, most of the patterned theories that focus on distributive justice normally restrict people in taking free actions. He postulates that there is no need to intervene in order to redistribute properties as it is a mere violation of rights.
In conclusion, one of major difference between Rawls and Nozick theories is that Nozick defiantly defends the rights of ownership of properties. However, it is worth to note that most of the properties owned by people results from people’s social position as well as their natural talents. Therefore, it is morally wrong to exercise inequalities in property ownership in the name of justice. Principles of justice should be given preference when deciding the rights of ownership by individuals.