Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
Posts: 14,703
Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43
|
 |
« on: June 07, 2005, 07:59:08 AM » |
|
Two of the most eminent US political philosophers of the late twentieth century are John Rawls (b.1921) and Robert Nozick (b.1938). With who's theory of justice do you most subscribe?
Rawls
Rawls' major philosophical work is 'A Theory of Justice' (1971), which has helped to shape both modern liberal and social democratic concepts of social justice. He employs the device of the social contract to develop an ethical theory, which represents an alternative to utilitarianism. By providing a justification for the redistribtution of wealth based on individualist assumptions, he has influenced both liberal and social democratic thought. Essentially, Rawls proposed a theory of 'justice as fairness', which is based on the maintenance of two core principles:
1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensiive liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others (this principle reflects a traditional liberal commitment to formal equality)
2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged; and (B) attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (this so-called 'difference principle) points towards a significant measure of social inequality
However, by no means, does Rawls' theory justify absolute social equality since he fully acknowledges the importance of material inequality as economic incentive; however, for him, material inequalities are only justifiable when they work to the advantage of the least well-off. Rawls' position is compatible with a market economy in which wealth is redistributed through the tax and welfare system up to the point that this becomes a disincentive to enterprise and so disadvantages even the poor. Rawls' egalitarianism is based on a kind of social contract theory rather than any evaluation of objective human needs, in that he starts out by making traditionally liberal assumptions about human nature, believing individuals to be rationally self-interested, but concludes that a broadly egalitarian distributution of wealth is what most people would regard as 'fair'
Nozick
Nozick's major philosophical work is 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' (1974) in which he develops a form of libertarianism close to Locke's and clearly influenced by the American individualists of the nineteenth century, like Spooner and Tucker. He firmly rejects the welfarist beliefs of modern liberalism but, by endorsing a minimal state, stopped short of anarcho-capitalism. His work has has a profound effect upon New Right theories and beliefs. In rejecting a needs-based principle of justice and any presumption in favour of equality, Nozick championed a principle of justice based upon the idea of 'rights', 'entitlements' or, in some cases, 'deserts'. This built on a traditon of distributive thought dating back to Plato and Aristotle, which suggests material benefits should in some way correspond to personal 'worth'. This formed the cornerstone of the classical liberal concept of social justice as espoused by Locke and Hume; thus, the principle of 'rights' serves as the basis for a liberal principle of justice. According to the rights view, material inequality is only justified if talents and willingness to work are unequally distributed among humankind
Nozick distinguished between historical principles of justice and end-state principles and, in his view, end-state principles like social equality and human needs are irrelevant to the justification of rewards. His objective was to identify a set of historical principles through which we can determine if a particular distribution of wealth is just and he suggested three 'justice preserving' rules:
1) Wealth has to be justly acquired in the first place, that is, it should not have been stolen and the rights of others should not have been infringed
2) Wealth has to be justly transferred from one responsible person to another
3) If wealth has been acquired or transferred unjustly this injustice should be rectified
For Nozick, these rules can be used to justify gross inequalities in the distribution of wealth an rewards and he rejects absolutely the idea that there is a moral basis for redistributing wealth in the name of equality or 'social justice' - a term, which he, and most other libertarians theorists, are deeply suspicious. The only means by which wealth should be transferred from rich to poor is through private acts of charity rather than through any moral obligations. However, Nozick's third principle - the 'rectification principle' could have dramatically egalitarian implications, especially of the origin of personal wealth lies in acts of duplicity or corruption, as well as calling into question that portion of wealth, which the industrialised West derived from the conquest, plunder and enslavement in Africa, Asia and Latin America
Well then ....
Dave
P.S. I subscribe mostly to Rawls
|
Poll
