Rawl’s theory was a monumental discovery in distributive justice, yet still, his work attracted ample criticism, both from libertarians and egalitarians. Foremost, it was argued that his theory placed a huge amount on liberty, however as Nozick notes, inequalities in wealth and power which would be created under the difference principle will ultimately produce inequalities in liberty, thus undermining Rawl’s key point. I am of the opinion that whilst his theory has many plausible benefits, it may not be suited to the society we live in today. The winner takes all mentality which is so prominent in the US and other major areas is something which has been grounded and which motivates people to work for their success.
From this, we arrive at the work of Robert Nozick, a libertarian who had rather contrasting arguments to that of Rawls. Pivotal to Nozick’s argument is that there should be a minimal role played by the state in resource distribution, and from this, society should be built upon the idea of liberalism. The states functions must be limited to the night watchman which protect against force and theft, and would be omitted from involvement in distribution or else people’s rights will be violated. Working from the criticism of Rawls, Nozick believed equal equality in economic distribution would greatly interfere with the individual freedom which is necessary for a society to thrive and which allows people to work harder. In terms of distribution and entitlement, Nozick formulated an entitlement theory, asserting that “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is just itself”. This included justice in acquisition (how you come by it), justice in transfer (how property is transferred) and lastly, rectification of injustice. On the whole, for Nozick, whether distribution is considered just or not depends on how it came about. However, resultant of this belief, Nozick’s theory could potentially justify very unequal economic distributions that may not respect what people deserve nor help those most disadvantaged. Where Rawl’s theory of distribution could be described as a ‘pattern theory’ whereby some person or institution is faced with the problem of fairly distributing, Nozick believed in quite the contrary, stating that as things are already in existence being produced, that there is no need to search for some pattern ‘for unheld holdings to fit’. Therefore, Nozick's intuition is that each person is entitled to his talents and abilities, and to whatever he can get his own efforts, with the help of others, or even by luck.
However, I believe Nozick’s theory contains too much freedom and furthermore presents an unrealistic view of state involvement to that of today. In today’s ‘just’ societies, governments play a fundamental role in at least monitoring economic distribution, and the distribution isn’t fair or reflective of what Rawl’s argued for, it is more plausible than allowing each individual to obtain economic resources through their own means, especially at the expense of others.
Lastly, it is appropriate to discuss the view of utilitarianism, an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes . In terms UT’s views on distribution, the concepts of total aggregate welfare and diminishing marginal utility are critical. The key question of UT’s is what distributive justice means. If a government implements economic policy that has implications for the distribution of goods in society and an increase or decrease in welfare in society. UT’s would also have to make sure that the policy maximises welfare/happiness in society. The balancing of proportionality and welfare in distribution for UT’s is complex. Simmonds notes that utilitarianisms have to make a trade off and choose that welfare should go to people who would most proportionately benefit however at the same time have something in place in order to keep the incentive to create new units of happiness for those who don't originally get the proportionate increase in happiness units. All in all, the right action for UT is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced (consequentialism). The notion of maximising welfare involves trading off the benefits accruing to some against the harms accruing to others, and deciding upon the course of action that produces the largest net benefit. Thus, as long as UT’s maximise gross domestic profit, it does not matter who has what. It can be unfairly distributed. This demonstrates that utilitarianism is not concerned with the question of how welfare is distributed, but how much welfare there is in total.
To conclude, each of these theories posits a contrasting idea in how economic resources should be distributed. Interestingly, for some reason or another, each of the theories will allow unequal distribution. However, I believe Rawl’s logic behind allowing this unequal distribution carries the most weight for a just society. In contrast to Nozick, Rawl’s difference principle will ensure that unequal distribution will be allowed if it benefits the least advantaged, and Rawl’s allows the state to have watch over this. Nozick’s theory on distribution places too much emphasis on liberalism and the ‘every man for himself’ attitude at the expense of a lack of fairness and equality. Utilitarianism also has plausible arguments; however, it could potentially justify discrimination of minorities in distribution in order to achieve the ‘greatest happiness’.
by
caenfahy333hotmailcouk (student)
