Rawls Principles Of Justice Essay

Principles of Justice

Reflective Equilibrium is Rawls’ attempt to argue that persons within society’s judgments are derived from a set of principles, namely principles of justice . These two principles of justice include:

1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others

2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and b) attached to positions in offices open to all.

Equal Liberty

These principles are in order of importance, in the sense that it is not until the first principle is completely satisfied that the second principle can come into effect. These principles are not only concerned

Nozick throws a spanner into the works with one simple question. Why can’t this rationale be applied to bodily organs, i.e. people have two eyes and two kidneys whereas others do not. If we look at this difference from a moral point of view we can see that it is arbitrary. However, if we look at organs as common resources we would violate the distinctness of persons which is where Rawls would contradict himself as he thrashed utilitarianism for similar reasons. Nozick further states that if we take seriously the distinctness of persons, we would reject the notion that persons are entitled to be benefited by others.

Nozick and Distributive Justice

As discussed previously, Rawls’ theory on individual rights does not include property rights. Nozick in his theory of ‘Justice as entitlement’ involves three main principles. These principles include;

 Justice in Acquisition – things of the world not belonging to anyone becomes appropriate objects. It seems here that Nozick fails to account for equality between individuals.

 Justice in Transfer – every individual must be able to keep, trade, or give away their property

 Justice in Rectification – This principle rectifies any mistakes in the first two

Nozick’s argument boils down to the point that property rights must be included within Rawls’ notion of individual rights to and of self-ownership. From this we encounter a contradictive conundrum, in the sense that for Rawls’ theory to make sense he must reject the idea of absolute property rights, whereas Nozick argues that property rights are individual rights that must be protected. It is argued that the right to property is an inviolable one that should be included in Rawls’ theory. I would argue that property rights extend far beyond the four walls of a home, to an individual having the exclusive right to use their resources as they deem