Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.


Hi, I need help with essay on Theories of Justice (Nozick's theory of distributive justice, compared to Rawls ). Paper must be at least 3000 words. Please, no plagiarized work!Download file "Theories

Hi, I need help with essay on Theories of Justice (Nozick's theory of distributive justice, compared to Rawls ). Paper must be at least 3000 words. Please, no plagiarized work!

Download file "Theories of Justice (Nozick's theory of distributive justice, compared to Rawls )" to see previous pages...

Out of the four theories of distributive justice, the only theory that has the most reliability is "justice as entitlement. This Nozickian theory is frequently thought as a response to Rawls' "justice as fairness" for the reason that it is a theory of extremes in comparison.

"Whilst Rawls uses the original position to generate a model of fairness,

he, does not take critically the distinction between persons since it extremely limits people's rights to utilize their own natural and social possessions" [5].

Robert Nozick's "Entitlement Theory" establishes a system of distribution that permits for holdings to be attained as well as transferred by means of legitimate means. This is in disagreement to a redistributive type of justice, like Rawls', which is an effort to level the difference by taking from a little to give to others who don't have as much. Nozick's form of distribution consists of the respect for people as well as their holdings by means of allowing the free market to be a basis of society. Thereby, the government's role in the economic sector would be minimal, allowing for increased productivity levels for those that engage in the free market. The rights of the citizens, and of legal aliens, of a liberal democratic state should not be infringed upon through the use of taxation or illegitimate transfers of holdings. self-ownership is a right that all people in a liberal (the broad sense) state could agree on.

Taxation is a form of forced labor by Nozick's account. Rawls' would argue that taxation is fundamental in maintaining public institutions and goods that benefit all in some cases and those in most need.

"Taxation would provide those most needy with a base-needs minimum. Nozick's objection to redistribution is that it uses some people as "means to other people's ends" This derives from Immanuel Kant's notion that we should not "treat others as means to our own or other people's ends, but as ends in themselves."[6]

I agree with Nozick that taxation for re-distributive purposes is forced labor because it treats people as means. taxes also pay for street light, and the police and defense. These are things that we all benefit from. therefore some taxes (though forced) are beneficial to society as a whole and thus should be implemented. The involuntary transfer from the richer to the poorer caused by taxation is a violation of a person's rights, but if it can be proven that the taxes they pay are advantageous to their own purposes then some might consider voluntarily paying taxes. I think the problem arises when fairness is being questioned. Fairness is hard to come by when taxation is being argued. It wouldn't be fair for some have to pay more for the same service that others pay less. Those that do not have the means would argue that taxing the rich more is fair. Hence, the raising and lowering of taxes, alternates with the change of parties heading this nation in particular.

When speaking of how Rawls and Nozick have different view points their ideas of the "separateness of persons," Adam Swift says: "What if I am one of the people made unhappy for the sake of other people's happiness"[6].

Show more
Ask a Question