Compare And Contrast John Rawls And Nozick

840 Words4 Pages
It’s directly stated that John Rawls and Robert Nozick both reject utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism-the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority
They seem to come to agreement on the aspect that certain individual rights are so fundamental that utilitarianism considerations should not override them. At the same time disagreements come into play when talking about what rights are actually fundamental
Rawls disagrees with Nozick- he does not believe that the results of a free market are even necessarily fair (related to his two principles of justice)
Think about this: (Reflect to this at the end of the chapter)
Do people morally deserve the benefits that result from the exercise of their talents-such as: good grades; college administration; income and wealth; fulfilling work; etc.)
A Theory of Justice-John Rawls
The good things in life are generally distributed according to moral desert under the idea of using common sense (in the idea of health and wellness)
Moral desert- related to justice, revenge, blame, punishment and many topics central to moral philosophy, also “moral desert”
Society is blind-sided from the concept of “Justice is happiness” according to virtue. In other words, it’s recognized but never has been carried out.
• Society needs to try and realize the conception of distributive justice and the circumstances that are permitted (in the example given its related to common good)
• Corresponding to Moral desert, under the
Open Document