John Rawls Theory Of Distributive Justice

Justice is one of the most important moral and political concepts. Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered. Philosophers want to get further than etymology and dictionary definitions to consider, for example, the nature of justice as both a moral virtue of character and a desirable quality of political society, as well as how it applies to ethical and social decision-making.

Theories of distributive justice concern what is distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is the proper distribution. Egalitarians argued that justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form

He defines the theory of justice as a work of political philosophy and ethics Rawls (1971). His main aim was to bring together two fundamental political philosophies egalitarianism and libertarianism. Rawls' theory attempts to resolve this division by meeting the libertarian demand, for the most part, to respect personal freedom, and meeting the egalitarian demand of equality regarding economic redistribution. Rawls argues that the concepts of freedom and equality are basically the same. For justice to be truly just, everyone must be afforded the same rights under the law. He goes onto adopt his two principles of justice which are the liberty principle and the difference

“Nozick claimed that any government that forcibly taxed rich people and redistributed their wealth to help poor people was directly violating the liberty of the rich. Nozick argued that governments had no right to infringe on the rights of individuals by taking their money and giving it to others. This was especially the case if people's wealth had come to be through hard work or natural talent” (Brown, 2003). Nozick believes the individual should make the decision of whether or not to help the least advantaged in society; the state should not to impose an obligation to do so. Nozick responds that each person’s talents and abilities belong to them. They therefore have a right to keep (or do whatever they want with) whatever these talents and abilities gain for them. To forcibly redistribute what they earn is to fail to respect their