Nozick And John Rawls

Who is Right? When discussing distribution of wealth in a society, John Rawls and Robert Nozick should come to mind. There are two approaches to the distribution of wealth: liberal and libertarian. John Rawls takes the liberal approach with his beliefs on distribution of wealth which include giving people of all backgrounds equal opportunity to gain higher achievement (Wenar). Robert Nozick is considered a libertarian because his philosophy focuses more on individual freedoms than helping others. Clearly the two views oppose one another in brief terms as well as in depth. However, after reviewing the philosophy of both Rawls and Nozick, I, personally, agree more with Rawls. Rawls believes that a society should be created from the original

The main concept of Nozick’s beliefs are rooted in ownership and how the objects are obtained. Objects can be acquired justly if the object wasn’t previously owned or if the object is fairly traded. These principles are entitled Justice of Original Acquisition and Transfer, respectively. However, if an object is not justly acquired then the person affected must be restored to their original standing. Nozick’s theory suggests that there are a variety of factors that may contribute to someone’s overall standing. Lastly, Nozick opposes providing government assistance to the least well-off. In order to put this belief into perspective, imagine Person 1 robs Person 2; however, Person 2 expects Person 3 to repay them. Does this tactic achieve justice for Person 1? No, because Person 3 did not commit the robbery; therefore, it is unfair for Person 3 to repay Person 1. This example demonstrates that you should not have to help someone especially if you played no part in the crime. Another aspect of Nozick’s argument states that we deserve the product of our luckiness. For instance, if Suzie is a great actor, then she should be able to reap the benefits of her talent. One of the biggest weaknesses, I believe, is that the oppressor, in a sense, must reestablish their victim’s life as if they were never oppressed. No one can assume what decisions their victim would have made.

Although there are aspects of both liberalism and libertarianism that I agree with, I agree more with John Rawls and liberalism. The liberalistic beliefs allow people of lower standing the opportunity to better themselves. I feel as though I am an example of this belief because I am a product of lower standing and by attending college I am seizing the opportunity to better myself. However, because I want to better myself, I am given the opportunity to do so with help from the government. Since my mother came from a low-income area of New York, her quality of education did not allow her to advance to achieve a higher standing in society to pass on to her children. Rawls accepts the fact that everyone does not want to better themselves but that should not hinder those who want to achieve more. Rawls also believes that luck-based features should not put a particular group, or groups, above others. It is unfair to give the upper hand to certain people because of factors beyond our control, such as race, age, talent, and more. With Rawls, I believe that there is an obligation to help others because you never know when you may need their help. Therefore, it is important to not stack the odds against anyone who lacks a particular feature, or features. In contrast, Nozick’s beliefs about entitlement and just holdings increases the gap between classes possibly causing