Nozick’s conception of the principles of distributive justice is an entitlement theory of justice. More specifically, it is a theory of how a society ought or ought not to regulate the distribution of goods, i.e. property, money. The entitlement theory claims that we can arrive whether a distribution of goods is just or not through looking at its history. Hence, Nozick believes in historical principles of justice that hold people’s past actions can create contrastive entitlements to things (Nozick, 1974: 155).
They determine how an unjust acquisition or transfer of property should be rectified. The entitlement theory says nothing about the process of initial appropriation. Nozick appeals to a “Lockean provision” such that an individual can legitimately claim possession of the natural world. Kymlicka summarizes the sentiment succinctly, that is, people own themselves; the world is initially unowned; you can acquire absolute rights over a disproportionate share of the world, if you do not worsen the condition of others ; it is relatively easy to acquire absolute rights over a disproportionate share of world and therefore once people have appropriated private property, a free market in capital and labour is morally required
Nozick proposes a definition of justice surrounding liberty. An entitlement theory comprising of three principles which result in freedom to be absolutely entitled to property and the self. His argument maintains that patterned principles of just distribution depart from this historical scheme and, in doing so, involve unacceptable infringements of liberty. Nozick defends his entitlement theory with a Wilt Chamberlain illustration. The difficult aspect of this is that Nozick does not clearly tell us how to properly satisfy what those three principles require under the perception that his argument could clear the field of patterned theory competitors.
Nozick proposes a definition of justice surrounding liberty. An entitlement theory comprising of three principles which result in freedom to be absolutely entitled to property and the self. His argument maintains that patterned principles of just distribution depart from this historical scheme and, in doing so, involve unacceptable infringements of liberty. Nozick defends his entitlement theory with a Wilt Chamberlain illustration. Despite being a persuasive and strong argument, the difficult aspect of this is that Nozick does not clearly tell us how to properly satisfy what those three principles require under the perception that his argument could shut down his patterned theory competitors.
James A. Hammerton in the “ A Critique of Libertarianism” said that not all voluntary exchanges are just as the exchanges can have consequence on third parties, who might not have consented to the exchange. It contradicts the theory from Nozick that the just transfer of goods is a voluntary transfer from the rightful owner to another person, and without mention about the third parties. In additon, as Nozick said that property right is inviolable, it means that any violations should be compensated for. But in real world that may not be the case as it will be impossible for everyone who get benefits from the government compensate to those to contribute the fund. James also believe that the operation of the free market should be come along with some social rules.
3.3. Robert Nozick on John Rawls. In his A Theory of Justice is widely recognized as an essential contribution to the nature of justice. However, his work raises many questions. One of the major responses to the book came from Robert Nozick in his book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
Mackie’s argument from queerness is founded upon a naturalistic account of the world. The main idea of the argument from queerness seems to imply that we should not believe in the existence of objective values because they would not fit in with a naturalistic world. He is convinced that there are no moral facts and properties, and we cannot possibly have moral knowledge. There are two parts in Mackie’s argument from queerness, one metaphysical and the other epistemological. The metaphysical component
Nozick’s book, as a whole, defends a libertarian perspective. I intent to focus, if not exclusively, mostly on the third part of the book. As Nozick states in the end of the chapter: “The argument of this chapter starts (and stands) independently of the argument of Parts I and II and converges to their result, the minimal state (limited to the narrow functions of protection against fraud, theft, force, enforcement of contracts, etc. ), from another
He says, "They couldn't imagine God was less than all-knowing or that he could be wrong, so they concluded that humans must not have free choice." Renick writes Aquinas's response to Luther and Calvin, "If we have no free choice – if everything we do is a product of God's control – then God is unjust, punishing some poor wretches for actions that are not their
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.