[Class Title]
John Rawls and Robert Nozick are two remarkable philosophers who proposed two opposing views regarding what an ideal social justice system should be. Rawls, for instance, believe that social justice should be based on fairness; that is, the burden and benefits of society should be distributed among its members in a reasonable manner (Rawls 10). For the same reason, it can be deduced that Rawls advocates for an expansive state that cares for the welfare of its citizens. On the other hand, Nozick believes that it would benefit society more if people are left to live and compete on their own (Nozick 149). For Nozick, the state should have minimal control over the affairs of its citizens primarily because individuals has a right to their holdings and that whatever they do to their own possession is their business and not of the state (Nozick 149). For Nozick, the state is making an injustice if it regulates the voluntary acquisition and exchange of holdings of individuals in a free society (Nozick 152). These two competing views on how society should act creates a debatable issue on what stand should the government or state take; is it the expansive state suggested by Rawls or is it the minimal state suggested by Nozick? Many people would think that Nozick’s position is more justifiable because it provides individuals with more freedom to conduct their own affairs. It appears, however, that Nozick does not take into account the underprivileged and marginalized sector of society; examples of which are those who are poor and those that have physical and mental disabilities. Rawls’ concept of social justice, on the other hand, provides a justification of why the state should care for its underprivileged citizens. Unlike Nozick, Rawls concept of justice is more compatible with the moral standards of fairness and benevolence in human society. Consistent with Rawls’ view on what constitute social justice, this paper would like to argue that human society would be better off when there is social cooperation so that individuals would carry a fair share of society’s burden as well as share its benefits in a fair manner.
Robert Nozick’s philosophy regarding social justice is based on his three principles of justice, which he believed should be the ultimate criteria on how to determine what is just. The first principle, according to Nozick, is that a person is entitled to his possession if he acquires it in a just way (Nozick 151). Nozick, for instance, believes that everyone is entitled to any holdings that are justly acquired so that there can be no guilt when someone has far more material possessions than another since the latter acquired his possessions or holdings in a just manner (Nozick 151). The second principle is that a person who acquires a possession that has been transferred to him from someone who acquired a particular property in a just way, is similarly entitled to that possession (Nozick 151). Simply saying, it would be injustice if a person acquires something that was once acquired through unjust means. As stated by Nozick, “Justice in holdings is historical; it depends upon what actually has happened” (Nozick 152). The third principle, according to Nozick, is the summary of the first and the second criterion wherein he stated that “No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2” (Nozick 151). For Nozick, justice is preserved if such acquisition and transfer of possessions is not hindered by external forces that could limit the voluntary exchange of such possessions (Nozick 152). Some people, for instance, steal, defraud, prevent others from living the way they wanted to live or prevent others from competing in a free market. For Nozick, holdings acquired in unjust circumstances are not permissible, but those that are acquired or transferred through legitimate means are just (Nozick 152).
In placing his social justice theory in perspective, Nozick made an example of the basketball superstar, Wilt Chamberlain. According to Nozick, prior to Chamberlain’s basketball event, Chamberlain, his fans and the rest of society has a particular wealth distribution that he refered to as D1 (Nozick 160). This original distribution is altered when 1 million fans agreed to pay Chamberlain an extra $0.25 to see him play. After the game, a new distribution takes place that Nozick referred to as D2 (Nozick 161). This new distribution increased Chamberlain’s wealth by $250,000 while the 1 million fans’s wealth were decreased by $0.25 each. It should be noted that the rest of society is not affected by the new distribution; only Chamberlain and the 1 million fans that paid to see his game. Nozick believes that since the fans voluntarily gave their $0.25 to Chamberlain, the latter’s acquisition of $250,000 is just (Nozick 161). Consequently, it would be unjust to take a portion of Chamberlain’s income through tax and distribute it to the rest of society, including those who did not even pay for to watch Chamberlain’s game. For the same reason, Nozick advocates for a minimal state (Nozick 149). He believes that the role of the government should only be limited to the protection of an individual’s right and the military security of the state while the rest should be handed over to free market competition. It follows then that Nozick is opposed to taxation primarily because of its involuntary nature and because taxation takes away a portion of the income of an individual to be shared by many through social services.
As opposed to Nozick, John Rawls believes that social justice can only exist when everyone is given equal opportunities (Rawls 10). However, since inequality is unavoidable, then society should work cooperatively in order to provide each individual their fair share of opportunities (Rawls 7). According to Rawls, social cooperation is better than an individual living on his own because it provides a “better life for all” and not only to a few individuals (Rawls 4). Rawls believe that the state exists for this purpose; that is, to make sure that everyone gets a fair share of the benefits and the burdens of society (Rawls 4). The state, for Rawls, has a social contract with society in order to defend those who cannot defend themselves and to regulate competition so that everyone will have a fair opportunity to survive (Rawls 10). Rawls believes that if the state will not regulate society, individuals will act selfishly and do injustice to their fellow men (Rawls 4). Society, thereby, should voluntarily submit itself to be governed by the State primarily because it is for its own good. Without an expansive state, chaos and anarchy would ensue since each one will pursue their self-interests and because “they each prefer a larger to a lesser share” (Rawls 4).
Unlike Nozick, Rawls’ social justice theory calls for a proactive government that will oversee the equal distribution of rights and opportunities. For Rawls, “justice is the first virtue of social institutions” so that any laws, no matter how good they are in terms of providing benefits for society, must be rejected and abolished if they are unjust (Rawls 3). The government, therefore, should eliminate any “arbitrary distinctions,” which gives an individual an initial advantage over another. As observed by Rawls, there are some people who are born in a situation so debilitating that their chances of competing against other people is greatly encumbered (Rawls 9). According to Rawls, an ideal society should cover up for these encumbrances by regulating the division of social benefits so that they reflect fairness (Rawls 10). A poor man, for instance, may receive more welfare services from the government than a more affluent man and yet such scenario is still considered as just primarily because the poor man needs welfare more than the affluent man. Another scenario wherein Rawls’ concept of social justice can be put in perspective is to consider a situation wherein random people of different physical capacities are compelled to get past a certain finish line. Equality requires that each one should start at the same initial position, at the same time. This situation, however, would certainly fail those who have physical disabilities or those who are not accustomed to running as compared to those who are physically fit. Fairness, however, suggests that the runners should be lined up according to their running abilities so that they all have an equal chance of reaching the finish line at the same time. For the same reason, Rawls believes that fairness should be the major criteria for justice, which is consistent with how most government institutions conduct their services today.
On the other hand, such scenario wherein Chamberlain’s income is taxed can be justified by Rawls’ social justice principle. First of all, it should be noted that the circumstances that allowed Chamberlain and his fans to conduct their basketball event is interconnected with the development of society as a whole. The circumstances that made Chamberlain such a successful athlete, for instance, can be attributed to the advancement of society as a product of the mutual cooperation among its members. Although the exchange of wealth impacted only Chamberlain and the 1 million fans that paid to see him play, the mediums that allowed this exchange to take place is linked with the social conditions that affects everyone as well as the social facilities that were developed by the mutual cooperation of society over time. The road that the fans use in going to Chamberlain’s game, the coliseum used as a venue, the media outlets that advertised the game as well as many other stakeholders that may have direct or indirect participation on Chamberlain’s game, points out to the interconnectedness of every element of society. For the same reason, it is only just to take a portion of Chamberlain’s income and redistribute it to the rest of society in terms of government services. Rawls’ social justice concept is thereby more justified than Nozick since it aims to benefit everyone and not just those who are privileged with capabilities to compete. Rawls’ social justice concept, for instance, benefits not only the strong and fit, but also the disadvantaged sector of society. Many Americans, for instance, resent the uneven distribution of income in the United States. If given a choice, many would like to have an income distribution similar to Sweden wherein income disparity is not strictly egalitarian, but not gravely unequal as compared to the United States (Norton & Ariely as cited in Lecture 12: A Theory of Justice (1971) 3). Social justice, therefore, should not only benefit those who are capable of making voluntary exchanges as what Nozick suggests, but should also benefit the rest of society that provides the platform for the exchange occur.
Works Cited
"Lecture 12: A Theory of Justice (1971)." (2011): 1 - 24. print.
Nozick, R. Anarcy, State, and Utopia. 1974. print.
Rawls, J. "A Theory of Justice." Harvard University Press (1999). print.
