John Rawls and Robert Nozick

What implications does your position have regarding the structure of our society? Module No: 26160 Student Number: 200912136 John Rawls and Robert Nozick both present theories of justice, their views are very distinct and on some level similar. Rawls theory comes from a utilitarian view, utilitarian is a doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority on the other hand Nozick’s theory is based on John Locke’s ideas of natural rights.

The theories have much in common as many of their ideas can be seen in today’s society; Nozick’s ideas are based upon the ideas put forth from John Locke. Locke’s ideas are imbedded within the U. S constitution, quoting Locke directly; his idea’s are very influential in U. S. society. Other ideas put forth such as the right to trade, the free market where governments have no influence can also be interpreted in this fashion.

On the other hand Rawls ideas can be seen within the United Kingdom where a welfare state is in place to protect the least advantaged of society. Other countries have sought to extend their welfare system, such as Germany and the Netherlands. Other factors of Rawls theory can also be seen today, such as the fact that any individual, no matter what background they come from can acquire a position of power, an example of this is that anybody can become a member of parliament, prime minister or even the president of the United States.

John Rawls theory is called Justice as Fairness and was published in Rawls book A Theory of Justice in 1971. The theory is divided into two principles; however Rawls has arranged the principles in order of priority, so as if the two principles were to ever clash then the first principle would take precedent over the second, “These principles are to be arranged in a serial order with the first principle prior to the second.

This ordering means that a departure from the institutions of equal liberty required by the first principle cannot be justified by, or compensated for, by greater social and economic advantages” (Rawls, 1989, 61). Moreover the principles are intended to be a single coherent theory. The first principle also known as the principle of equal liberty states “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all” (Rawls, 1989, 302).

The second principle is broken down into two sub-principles (a) called the difference principle and (b) called the principle of fair equality of opportunity. The principle states “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, an (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of faire equality of opportunity” (Rawls, 1989, 302).

Rawls explains the first principle, “the basic liberties of citizens are, roughly speaking, political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for public office) together with freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person along with the right to hold (personal) property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law. These liberties are required to be equal by the first principle, since citizens of a just society are to have the same basic rights” (Rawls, 1989, 61).

The notion of basic rights entails that certain rights such as freedom of speech and to own personal property are available to everyone in society no matter what race, sex and political standing an individual comes from. The second principle according to Rawls (1989) means that regardless of an individual’s social background, race or sex. An individual has the right to opportunities, such as ‘offices and positions’ meaning that everyone has an equal chance of obtaining and holding these positions, an example of this in the present day is that anybody can become a member of parliament.

Rawls goes on to say “while the distribution of wealth and income need not be equal” (Rawls, 1989, 61). However freeman (2008) interprets this “it basically requires that a society is to institute the economic system that would make the least advantaged class better off than they would be in any other feasible economic system, compatible with maintaining citizens equal basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity”. In today’s society, namely the United Kingdom a welfare system is in place to protect the least fortunate/least advantaged people in society.

Nozick’s theory is known as entitlement theory and follows John Locke’s work of natural rights, entitlement theory comprises of three main principles. The first principle states “a person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding” (Nozick, 1974, 151). The second principle states “a person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding” (Nozick, 1974, 151).

The third principle states “no one is entitled to the holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2” (Nozick, 1974, 151). The first principle of Nozick’s theory means that when an individual acquires an item (holding), they are entitled to keep and own that item as long as it is in accordance with ‘justice in acquisition’. Nozick (1974) does explain this further by saying “to appropriate anything not already owned, provided he leaves ‘enough and as good’ for others – i. e. provided his appropriation leaves them no worse off” (Nozick, 1974, 153).

However no bench mark is given to how an individual may be worse off compared to Rawls who gives a clear definition stating “worst-off person must be no worse off than he would be under any other possible arrangement” (Rawls, 1989, 174). The second principle of the entitlement theory is fairly easy to grasp as it reflects the free-market and trade. The third principle according to Nozick would not be needed if the world were just, Nozick does go on to say “a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution” (Nozick, 1974, 151).

However this rule is seldom followed, “some people steal from others, or defraud them, or enslave them, seizing their product and preventing them from living as they choose, or forcibly exclude others from competing in exchanges” (Nozick, 1974, 152). This is the primary reason Nozick created the third principle. Nozick’s entitlement theory is based upon John Locke’s ideas; Nozick reinforces the ideas of the free market and private property. Nozick is also a supporter of the minimal state and non-interference by the state; ccording to Nozick “we have absolute rights to life and liberty, and are also able to form absolute rights to property.

But the mere fact that we have rights does not guarantee that they are always going to be respected. How can we protect ourselves against those prepared to violate our rights? In present societies we have institutions to protect ourselves. We may call the police, or take those who violate our rights to court” (Nozick, 1991, 10). The belief in a minimal state is strong; the function of the state in part would be to reinforce the third principle of the entitlement theory.

The two theories, a theory of justice by John Rawls and Entitlement theory by Robert Nozick contrast sharply. One of the main points of Nozick’s idea is the second principle; the second principle can be interpreted as the free market. However “when we leave it to a competitive market to determine the availability and price of goods and services, we allow people’s well-being to be deeply affected by supply and demand. There is no assurance that these will allocate resources to meet a utilitarian” (Corlett, 1991, 314-315).

In this fashion the free market prevails and Nozick’s second principle is reinforced, on the other hand Rawls theory is predominantly aimed at helping the least fortunate in society, the free market does not contribute to helping this, in fact it widens the gap between rich and poor. The most notable differences between the two theories are that on a basic level, Rawls theory is predominantly aimed at equal rights (equality) for everyone and protecting these rights, moreover benefitting the least advantaged in society take second priority.

On the other hand Nozick theory outlines principles of ownership (liberty) and trade between individuals or entities, this view is on a very basic level of the theories, moreover when a deeper examination of these theories takes place there are similarities between the two, but there are also difference. Rawls theory states that everyone has equal basic rights and liberties and if these rights or liberties were to be infringed upon for any reason, they should only be infringed upon to a degree where it benefits the least advantaged in society.

While Nozick has a different view, due to the fact of his second principle, Nozick states that when an individual manufactures, creates or invents something, they have rights to own that thing (e. g. patent for a new engine design). “Things come into the world already attached to people having entitlements over them” (Nozick 1974, 160), the thought of taking an individual’s belongings to give to the less fortunate or disadvantaged is unmerited and violates their rights. Nozick goes on to say “holdings to which (…. people are entitled may not be seized, even to provide equality of opportunity for others” (Nozick, 1974, 235).

This is in direct conflict with Rawls second principle (a) of helping the most disadvantaged people, Nozick finds depriving someone of their property or redistributing wealth to be immoral. Both theories do pertain to society in different ways, however only when these theories crossover at certain points, such as Nozick’s view of acquiring holdings (goods), which can then be interpreted as the free market which encourages greed and the resulting fallout from that.

But on the other hand Rawls principle to redistribute wealth to help the less fortunate, go hand in hand. Both theories have problems and solutions to each other. The theory that is more persuasive for me is Rawls theory of Justice, predominantly due to the fact that I am from India and the key philosophy in India is to respect all life, because of this philosophy I cannot stand idly by and not help the least fortunate of society.

On an objective note however I still agree with Rawls theory, the redistribution of wealth is key to the society within the United Kingdom as it helps to create a level playing field for everyone, instead of widening the gap between rich and poor, something which Nozick advocated. Nozick’s ideas does however have its lures, the notion of a minimal state that does not interfere with the members of society and all that is acquired by an individual over their life time is there’s and the state will help protect their property.

However Nozick did not define how the state would be funded. Nozick’s ideas have at their heart the liberty of individuals; however as time goes by the distribution of wealth will get concentrated to a smaller and smaller proportion of society, in essence destroying the liberty of the poorer members of society as even though they have the negative freedom , they do not have the means to achieve all they may wish. Because of this Rawlsian approach has greater advantages to society and individuals, as the society will be able to grow and flourish.

Rawlsian thinking can be seen in many areas of society, take the recent banking crisis of 2008-2009 for example, the U. K. government had to step in and bail out struggling banks because the banking system could not be allowed to fail as it would cause further reaching problems throughout society. The government took a utilitarian approach that was to benefit the greatest number of people; in turn a Rawlsian approach was also taken, in essence to benefit the least advantaged banks.

Banks support the free market by providing organisations and companies with loans so they can compete within the free market, however in turn by redistributing wealth, Nozick’s entitlement theory was supported. Primarily the free market was supported, which Nozick’s principles are loosely based upon. My positions as a follower of Rawls and concerning the implications regarding the structure of our society, in my opinion is a well thought out theory, as it looks to better society as a whole.

The implications however are far reaching; we can see that different countries have adopted different views concerning Nozick and Rawls. In the U. S. the democrats have traditionally sought a Rawlsian approach; they support the redistribution of wealth to help the less fortunate, while the Republicans have adopted a Nozickian stance, pushing for tax cuts and reducing government interference within society. The American dream is an advocate of Nozick’s ideas due to the fact that fortune and success are gained through hard work and talent.

Another county which is following closely behind America is Australia, moving to the extremes of Nozick’s idea of individualism and the philosophy of ‘why should I pay for someone else to benefit’. This can be seen in policy implementation over the past decade. Closer to home in the United Kingdom, Nozickian ideas are not completely forgotten about, recently the government introduced higher university fees for students. Students know have to pay up to ? 10000 per year for tuition, moreover pensions are coming under scrutiny as the government is asking people to make their own arrangements for their pensions.

With Nozick’s view the divide between rich and poor will widen, this can be seen in certain areas of the United States, where the inequality of wealth is reflected in the high GINI coefficient of 0. 45 (C. I. A, 2007). Jargowsky (1997) claims that there is a link between low incomes and crime within ghettos; moreover due to low incomes and the increasing divide between rich and poor, it infringes upon the liberty of these people. Because they do not have the means or the freedom to live where they want, pay for ‘the best’ schools/education, it further exacerbates the problem.

This increases the rich- poor divide, on a basic level Nozick grants liberty and freedom to the rich in society while turning a blind eye to the poor of society. Nozick’s view can create a selfish, individualist society, where people are encouraged to consume materialist goods and services rather than have care and compassion for their fellow human beings. On another note Rawlsian ideas encourage a society to pool its resources and work together to benefit the whole of man kind.

However it is not all in Nozickian favour, Rawlsian does have its support in society, most predominantly in the U.K. , the U. K. is a welfare state. Health care, education, unemployment benefits are all part of government spending, the members of society pay for everybody within society to have these benefits available to them. In conclusion john Rawls and Robert Nozick do both present competing theories of justice, on one hand liberty takes precedence but on the other equality takes precedence. The way I have come to my conclusion is by asking a simple question, which theory has the potential to benefit society and mankind?

However the answer is not as simple as the question, both theories posse’s benefits and drawbacks. Rawls theory does have a profound argument which is derived from the utilitarian perspective, to benefit the least advantaged within society and that all people are equally capable of obtaining any position of power. On many levels this can be seen throughout the world, recently in 2005 Barack Obama took office and became president of the United States, reaffirming the notion that “offices and positions open to all under conditions of faire equality of opportunity” (Rawls, 1989, 302).

However Nozick’s entitlement theory which shows great support for the free market and property rights of individuals, however there are great problems with the theory when related to society as a whole, the most profound and disturbing problem that I have found, is the fact that the divide between rich and poor will deepen with time if Nozick’s theory is implemented, and in the long term will begin to infringe upon the liberty of the members of society, something that Nozick sought to protect.

Overall the contrast between the two theories is very different, but when applied to society can have very deep affects within the culture of a society; however today society is is a very different place compared to when these theories were published, but there ideas may still bear fruit in the future. My own opinion on the matter is that both theories have merit within society and also there drawback.