John Rawls believed that if certain individuals had natural talents, they did not always deserve the benefits that came with having these abilities. Instead, Rawls proposed, these inherent advantages should be used to benefit others. Although Rawls makes an excellent argument on why this should be the case, not all philosophers agreed with his reasoning, especially Robert Nozick. Nozick believed in distributing benefits in a fair manner in accordance with the Entitlement Theory, which has three subsections: Just Acquisition, Just Transfer and Just Rectification. In this essay we will go over why Nozick rejects Rawls’ idea and what Rawls’ response to this rejection would be. Rawls ' argument that natural talents should only be used if they can benefit others stems from his belief that people with such abilities are undeserving of them (seeing that they did not work to achieve them) and, therefore, they will only be useful if they use these talents for the oppressed. Mark R. Reiff explains this in his work, “Exploitation and Economic Justice in the Liberal Capitalist State”, where he says that Rawls believes …show more content…
This in turn could result in anarchy or social tumult. Many individuals living in challenging conditions or times who have natural talents and abilities most likely would want to keep their benefits in order to help improve the situation they are in. Such people would certainly be unwilling to share their talents with the less fortunate. Rawls disregards this fact, believing that the ones with the natural abilities live in a great environment while the ones who do not carry that ability live in a horrible and corrupted environment. This is not necessarily true because there are many times where someone has a natural talent, but cannot use it as efficiently because of the oppressed life they