Hey guys so I wanted to ask what the differences between their theories are? I understood Rawls theory of justice but definitely not Nozicks. Could someone perhaps explain it to me?
In: 5
Essentially, Rawls’ theory of justice is about the distribution of wealth in a society, with the main idea being that those who are worst off should still be better off than in any other system.
Nozick looks through a different lens. His theory of justice is about entitlement, meaning that society is just if people get what they are entitled to. Practically, that means that they got their wealth through legal means and voluntary exchanges. The classic example is that of an athletic superstar, who gets rich because a lot of people are willing to pay to see him play. According to Nozick, this star athlete (or musician or whatever) is thus entitled to earn a lot.
But that can have a very skewed distribution of wealth in overall society as a result, with a few stars in the top becoming very wealthy compared to the general population. To what degree is that purely their own merit? Sure, the star may have worked a lot to develop his talents, but he was also blessed with good genetics and born in a society that really values athletic capabilities in certain sports. Where does that leave people who do not get born with such talents? Under the veil of ignorance, meaning that we don’t know with what talents we will be born, is a society that massively rewards athletic skill one that can still be just? Or would there need to be more redistribution, which in this case would mean that the athletic superstar would pay substantially more taxes? And if so, to what degree?
So, it is about overall distribution of wealth within a society versus how people earn their wealth.
Latest Answers