John Rawl vs Robert Nozick Essay Example

value for any liberty.

Rawls looked into freedom for citizens in political liberty, freedom of speech assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought. Robert Nozick had a different idea to it, he claimed that rights to be absolute and not prima facie, he considered liberty to be more important value ( Francis, & Francis, 1976). He argued that there is pressure between liberty and equality. Robert Nozick claims that justice involves three main principles which are justice in acquisition, justice in transfer and rectification of injustice (Hevia, & Spector, 2008). He advocated for the entire community with various economical standards.

He argued if the government taxed the wealthy citizens therefore those group of people are liberty are being violated. He stated that government has no rights to override an individual’s rights, it has to be freedom towards all types of citizen not considering status and standard. The rights of individual was the principle he held on firmly and not redistribution of wealth, his claim his justice is about respecting the citizens natural rights (Costa,2009). He said instead of looking at people like a group it is important to view them as an individual, he describes them as ends in themselves.

The citizen should have freedom to make a choice on what they want to do with whatever they own, as it is their own belonging. Robert Nozick also argued that each individual production is their own rights as it is their own labor thus property rights are important as they are resulting from self ownership. John Rawls and Robert Nozick agreed to each other principles in some level. They had similarity

in their view of justice, they both believed on the idea to substitute a procedural account of justice for a substantive one (Schaefer, 2007).

Both agreed on the importance of justice and their theories are to support that. They also shared a view of political philosophy as an exercise in production of abstract theories (Schaefer, 2007). They were on the same page on their view of the good and just society as one that is not grounded in any substantive view of the good life, but aim to provide citizens with the greatest freedom to live as they wish (Schaefer, 2007). However they also had differences in their principles and theories. The outstanding differences is the treatment of the government redistribution of wealth.

Robert Nozick argued that John Rawls principles of liberty and the differences of ability to achieve in an individual actually contradict with each other (Hevia, & Spector, 2008). John Rawls does admit that all though it is important for every citizen is to have equal liberty, but the differences in their ability to achieve their goals are not the same therefore the worth of liberty will not be same for everyone. The equality is not achieved as there are differences (Brown, 2012). John Rawls then questioned Nozick’s property right, and he claimed natural talent and people’s position in society as moral arbitrary(Schaefer, 2007).

He then applied the equality theory into this and claimed that any inequality in ownership is not justice and people do not have the rights to what they have earned through their talent. In contrast Robert Nozick responded that he believed each individual talent and ability

varies but they belong to that individual itself and therefore they have every rights to do and decide what they want to do with their own earnings. Redistributing their own hard earning are not respecting their autonomy. On the other hand there is a place for argument to what happens if there is no redistribution of wealth.

Unlike Rawls theory where it considers the well being of each community without accounting their ability and talent. Robert Nozick’s philosophy would lead to large economical differences between the citizens. There will be the very rich group of people and the very poor community. The poor or less advantaged group of people will now lose their freedom to live as what they desire. The basic needs itself might be an issue to face in daily basis, comparing to the rich community it will then become unfair towards the poor and they will be a force of living in denial of liberty.

There is an inequality in Robert Nozick theory as well he is approving the liberty of the people that have the talent and ability to earn more than they need but denying the liberty of the poor, just because they are not gifted with talent and ability. Comparing the both theories it is obvious that implementing John Rawl’s theory in principles of justice will bring a better outcome of the overall freedom and equality of the citizen. However John Norzick theory and idea seem to have empowered country like Australia to have a stable economy. The citizen is encouraged to pay extra if they are looking for high end service.

Services like private health

cover are now encouraged by the government to the people. There are also group of people that funds their own retirement which is exactly what Nozick advocacy is about, minimum government intervention of the individual’s wealth. As for property owners, their property clearly belong to them and they are not forced to give away their property or let anyo ne else use it just because they are not making use of it (Hevia, & Spector, 2008). Thinking about redistribution how can the government ensure a fair distribution of wealth? How would the government assess people’s wealth and decide it would be evenly distributed.