“1. Each person is to have equal right to the most extensive total system of basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all; and
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a. to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged… and b. attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”
Rawls justifies inequalities in his second principle so long that it does not take priority over the first. Which means that an unequal distribution of a social good can be considered just as long as it is to the greatest benefit to the least advantaged. However he does not mention the fact that by accepting an unequal distribution the most well off are being deprived of their justice. So in a sense his theory is ‘just’ although as justice for the least well off without considering justice for the more well off people of society.
Another objection to the original position theory from a communitarians standpoint would be that we posses our values, needs and desires from interaction in society thus making the veil of ignorance worthless when trying to find distributive justice. This is because the communitarian standpoint argues that the need for rights, liberties, opportunities and wealth comes with experience and influence from other parties in living life. On the other hand the ‘original position’ also disregards the view that social bonds are intrinsically good and makes the claim that people are individualistic and self-orientated, rather than naturally social. Another criticism of the Rawls’ original position theory on distributive justice comes from Robert Nozick. In his book Anarchy, State and Utopia he makes the assertion that although the original position is just in the sense of its establishment it overlooks the point that if the inequalities that arise after the original position these inequalities are justified if they are distributed by means of free exchange.
Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory directly counters Rawls’ theory on distributive justice. Nozick’s entitlement theory states:
“1. Justice in acquisition: how you first acquire property rights over something that has not previously been owned
2. Justice in transfer: how you acquire property rights over something that has been transferred (e.g. by gift or exchange) to you by someone else;
3. Rectification of injustice: how to restore something to its rightful owner, in case of injustice in either acquisition or transfer.”
Nozick’s theory on distributive justice is primarily concerned with how it came about. So for example if a property has been acquired through means of gift exchanging then this is ‘just’ as it has been historically been in position of someone who has rightfully owned it either by his own labour or again been given as a gift. Robert Nozick gives a insightful example of how an unequal but just distribution comes about and how it is fair for all. He uses a basketball player named Wilt Chamberlain to push forward his view that if people pay extra just to see him then it is that society’s choice to reward him for his abilities and skills. Yet I would like to give an example developed by myself influenced by Robert Nozick, which doesn’t demonstrate economic liberties and justice but a more moral justice. Imagine a scenario where person A and person B is in high school and they are both studying hard to get sufficient grades in order to progress onto university. Let’s also assume that both parties have previously had the veil of ignorance on and they are now economically equal. If person A gets 100% in his grades at the end of the year and Person B only manages to get 30% it means that going by Rawls’ justice theory Person A’s grades should be altered or weighted in order for Person B to progress into university as-well. So although person A has worked harder and is probably smarter he is in a sense punished for this fact. The point being that this equal distribution is unjust.
Robert Nozick’s view on justice is about respecting peoples rights and their rights to possessing property and ownership. He argues that human beings are entitled to choose what they want to do with their labour and what they own and states that we must honour their individual prospects. Nozick’s is basically pointing out that we cannot force people to oblige something that they wouldn’t necessarily if it wasn’t for moral or legal reasons even if it was for, Rawls’ assertion that it is in the name of the greater good. But if this theory was implemented then it could justify massive inequalities in property. This might not best suited for a society in which people are very worse off. And Rawls’ challenges Nozick on the basis that what people own is the result of their social wellbeing and their natural talents both of which are arbitrary and given this Rawls asserts that this is unjust. However Nozick comes back and counters this by stating that what talents and skills people possess belongs to them there for they are able to do whatever they wish with them. If property is acquired through their own labour then no matter how big or unequal it is, it is just and we are to respect their autonomy. There is however a very strong argument against Nozick’s entitlement theory and it states that historically there was a massive amount of property that was acquired in an unjust form. Given this it would mean going by Nozicks theory we would have to trace back what was rightfully owned and what wasn’t and thus re-distribute everything that wasn’t rightfully owned. This would practically be impossible to do. This makes Nozick’s theory to be implemented in modern day impossible and thus invalid. However this is a very extreme argument against the theory and practically impossible to implement so in order to bypass this there could be an assumed start date of just property to everyone so his theory could in theory being initiated.
In conclusion the dispute between Nozick and Rawls is a very deep and complex one that needs to be examined and possibly tested in the real world as neither Rawls original position theory is practically possible or neither Nozick’s entitlement theory given that property has been wrongfully acquired in the past. So the solution could be a variation of both theories, which incorporates the main morals. Both Rawls and Nozick accept unequal distributions of social goods in their theories as long as they are ‘just’. Nozick accepts that unequal distributions can be fair as long as they have been rightfully acquired however Rawls also accepts unequal distributions can be fair as long as they benefit the least well off. So the conclusion is that just both Nozick and Rawls can consider unequal distributions fair however as their definitions of ‘just’ are opposed a solid evaluation cannot be made until there is an agreement to what ‘just’ actually entails.
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971), 79.
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971).
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974).
Michael Lacewing, “Rawls and Nozick on justice” n.d. (accessed 28 March 2011).
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971).
Michael Lacewing, “Rawls and Nozick on justice” n.d. (accessed 28 March 2011).
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971).
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971), 302.
Selomo Avineri, Communitarianism and Individualism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).
Michael Lacewing, “Rawls and Nozick on justice” n.d. (accessed 28 March 2011).
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974).
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974), Ch. 7.
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974).
Chandran Kukathas, Philip Pettit, Rawls: A Theory of Justice and its Critics (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998).
Michael Lacewing, “Rawls and Nozick on justice” n.d. (accessed 28 March 2011).
