Introduction
Philosophers have suggested multiple theories that can be applied legislatively for different purposes depending on the societal aims that one seeks to address. Two seemingly opposing viewpoints that approach an existing problem with contrasting solutions belong to Robert Nozick and John Rawls. While both philosophers chose the notions of liberty, property, and justice as the central themes for their works, the two polarizing perspectives are distinct from one another when it comes to humanism, social justice, and income. Since the overviews are minimally similar, it is certain that such ideas are ultimately a portrayal of the divisiveness in the society itself, which, as the two theories, cannot come to a common conclusion in regards to a strategy preferred by the majority. However, in a situation in which the two are to be applied practically, Nozick’s approach may be more favorable even under the condition that Rawls is seemingly more humanistic and prone to socialist views.
Nozick. Overview
Robert Nozick’s Justice as Fairness is based on three major principles. First, the author mentions justice in acquisition, which implies that a person acquiring a good is entitled to it if it was acquired based on the concept of justice. Moreover, individuals may transfer goods if the transfer is based on just principles. Furthermore, the author mentions the ratification of injustice, which may involve compensation or other measures (Nozick, 1973). The author’s suggestion to limit the government in terms of manipulating the financial hierarchy through wealth redistribution and taxation of the rich exemplifies the capitalistic views. Instead, the philosopher strongly believed that one’s property belongs to the person who acquired it justly, and the mishandling of this concept is a violation of liberty. The critical aspect that the author mentions is the notion of justice, as only the goods that have been obtained legally and honestly may be protected through this theory.
The philosopher has also denied the idea of individual rights and liberties being minimized for the good of society since this is the main difference between justice and equality, two terms that the philosopher differentiates. Based on the premise illustrated by Nozick, a system in which one’s holdings may be taken and distributed to people who did not earn or acquire them just cannot be considered equal or free since it infringes upon the rights of the person who is entitled to said goods.
Rawls. Overview
As mentioned prior, the theory suggested by Rawls contrasts with Nozick’s ideas on multiple levels. First, the philosopher believes that while fundamental liberties are equal for each individual, the right to material goods is less prominent compared to social reciprocity (Rawls, 1958). Thus, the most vulnerable members of society are to be addressed through the wealth distribution of people with more financial potency. This premise is based on the concept that illustrates a society in which justice correlates with meeting the basic needs of all citizens. As long as this goal may be fulfilled through wealth distribution as a way for vulnerable members of society to strive, the wealthy population may have to give up some of the rights as long as they are not essential, such as freedom of speech and expression.
The author has also mentioned the concept of inequality, which ultimately creates an environment where people cannot achieve success based on their background, education, and other factors. Thus, the suggestion is based on the creation of an environment in which people’s opportunities are less dispersed, allowing certain individuals to achieve their objectives even without having the same privileges as others. As a result, the philosopher considers this measure an effective solution to the intrinsically unjust system.
Similarities
While the two approaches contrast in terms of the overall objectives exemplified by the philosophers, both have reflected upon such concepts as equality, property, and liberty or its limitation. It is important to mention that both Nozick and Rawls have the same overview on the fact that societies are not equal and people do not always have the same opportunities. Moreover, the authors have similar approaches when it comes to fundamental rights, which both agree with in terms of their undoubtful validity and importance. Furthermore, such liberties apply to every citizen. However, differences exist in terms of liberties related to acquired goods and how to utilize them. Based on the evidence mentioned prior, the similarities are mainly illustrated through the philosophers’ aims to create a structure in which a society can flourish. However, other than reflecting on the same topics and agreeing on basic principles, the works are intrinsically different on multiple ethical, socioeconomic, and political levels.
Differences
The main difference that is evident from the two philosophical perspectives is the definition of justice. For Nozick, justice is a notion that exemplifies one’s right to be entitled to something that was justly acquired. Thus, the government may not interfere with a good if it is in the legal possession of a citizen. On the other hand, Rawls does not believe in justice for one person as long as it creates an environment in which someone else is vulnerable. Thus, social justice is the only aim that, based on the theory of the author, is to be fulfilled with the collective effort of society as a unity. The contrasting concept may be illustrated as individualism vs. collectivism. Nozick believes that a system is only just if each person deserves that they receive both legally and regulatorily. Rawls believes that a system cannot be called just as long as certain people are unfortunate.
Another difference is the approach towards property and what it symbolizes. Nozick’s view suggests that a good that justly belongs to a person is the evidence that what is owned is protected by law and is evidence for freedom and liberty. Such a focus on material goods is purposeful and exemplifies a system in which justice allows for goods to remain legal property that an individual is entitled to by law. It may be transacted, yet the basis remains unchanged: the goods are secured through legislation and basic rights. On the other hand, Rawls suggests that material goods are merely tools that are to be used for societal good. Thus, as long as a person is entitled to more than another one, the goods are to be shared since the system is based on reciprocity and a lack of individual concern that may overpower the well-being of the entire demographic.
This illustrates another opposing idea that differs between the two approaches. Rawls prioritizes the majority and suggests that inequality is permitted as long as it benefits the vulnerable (Rawls, 1958). Thus, the interests of a person aiming to secure material goods cannot be more fundamental than the basic necessities of a citizen who cannot access the bare necessities. Wealth is to be distributed and based on the idea of an equal society, the presence of two people with a similar income that implies basic necessities is always better than a person holding the wealth and the other one unable to survive. This contrasts with Nozick’s suggestion that a system in which people have different opportunities is not to be altered in terms of outcomes despite a possible differentiation in jobs, income, and experience. Nozick’s approach is less humanitarian yet more individual-centered. Thus, in Nozick’s paradigm, a person’s wealth is either the outcome of hard work, inheritance or other circumstances that, if fair, do not deny the individual’s claim to the goods. Thus, the individual is more important than the collective, which is the polar opposite of Rawls’s references.
Conclusion
The two viewpoints, while inherently different, are both potentially effective depending on the situation. However, Nozick’s approach is more balanced for implementation based on the current social and criminal justice problems. The capitalistic present gave people opportunities to acquire wealth, yet the way it is being multiplied requires investment in new projects and constant innovation, which ultimately creates jobs and maximizes opportunities in terms of employment and escaping poverty. On the other hand, wealth distribution can slow this process down as those with the financial capabilities to create jobs and stimulate the economy would not be capable of developing new innovations and building companies. Thus, while distribution would be an effective problem solver in the short run, it would ultimately lead to stagnation in terms of business development and, ultimately, the path to prosperity for multiple people. Rawls’s approach is beneficial in terms of creating favorable conditions for the vulnerable. Nonetheless, government involvement in justly acquired goods only creates new social problems which exemplify inequality and negatively impact motivation to strive for success since success is often based on selfish desires, and collectivism cannot be a part of this paradigm.
References
Lamont, J., & Favor, C. (2017). Distributive justice. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
Rawls, J. (1958). Justice as fairness. The Philosophical Review, 67(2), 164. Web.