(1). Nozick’s principle of justice in acquisition states that where a person combines his talents to a resource that previously was not owned by anyone; his ownership of that item is just. For instance, a person that knits a coat out of string found on the street is a rightful owner of the coat. Nozick’s principle of transfer states that a person can right come into the possession of something he did not make, if the maker voluntarily transfer ownership to the person. For example, if the coat maker gives the coat he made to his son, the son is now the rightful owner. Nozick regards taxation as a violation of his theories of justice in acquisition and transfer because what it amounts to is forcible taking something that people have come to justly acquired, namely their wages and salaries, but have not voluntarily transferred. In essence, Nozick argues, taxation makes us a slave to the state and to each other. One objection to Nozick’s theory that I think is significant is the inequality of chance. In other words, is a society fair if it allows one that comes onto an unowned land abundant with natural resources to prosper over one that comes onto land with a lack of any resources. Is that justice? Accordingly, I think the Nozick’s theory is morally questionable. It focuses on supporting the wealthy, property owners while ignoring the poor and helpless.
(2). Under Marx’s analysis, workers are being exploited by capitalism because they are not getting paid their full worth for the work that they do. This allows their employers to get significant benefits. First, in the sale of the products/services that the workers produce. Second, in the money they save paying the workers to produce the products/services. Those benefits are illustrated in employer profits. I think that in many low-wage, low-skill industries, Marx’s theory is correct. However, not so much in higher-wage, higher skilled industries. Marx’s theory of justice attacks capitalism’s core aspect of exploitation by holding that a just society will take from every person according to their ability and provide to every person according to their need. Accordingly, most aspects of society will be owned by the public. The public will work, according to whatever their abilities are and in the process everything the community needs will be supplied. The public will then use whatever they need to live or work. In essence, there is not exploitation. One reason that Marx believes his theory of justice will work is because no one will work for their own sake and not just as a means to live because there will always be some provision for them. This point, however, is impossible. Greed, laziness, in incompetence are all human traits that will necessarily disrupt Marx’s idea publically owned and run society for all.
(3). Rawl’s “max-min” principle of justice states that in considering alternatives, we should compare the alternatives by the worst possible outcomes that each will produce. Finally, we should choose the alternative maximizes the effectiveness of the worst outcome. In other words, choose the alternative were the outcome is the least bad or several bad options. When the “max-min” principle is applied to a society, the results would be, for example, a distribution of justice, income and wealth that would maximize the position of the worst off in society. Rawls’ idea of the max-min principle is based on the broader idea of the original position where the framers of society are rational beings that do not know of the desires or prejudices of themselves or the people that they are establishing the society for; in other words, they might be rich or poor. Such framers would be inclined, according to Rawls, to choose those elements of society that would benefit the largest amount of people possible without putting anyone at a debilitating disadvantage. To be sure, such people would be attracted to the max-min principle because no matter how bad the society will turn out, it won’t be the worst possible result. One objection to Rawls’ principle is that one can argue why should my position such as my income be taken from in order to maximize the position of the worst off person. This is a valid point in that suggests that if enough people do not buy into Rawls’ theory, they could abandon it in favor of a system that maximizes the situation or the most powerful. I believe, Rawls’ theory is valid in that it hurts those that can get hurt the most, such as the wealthy, while providing significant assistance to those that need the most help, such as the poor and indigent.
(4). Bowie and Simon argue that one of the primary functions of the government is to “protect and where necessary implement the positive and negative human rights of its citizens” (Bowie and Simon 78). These rights include such privileges as the right to an education, the right to adequate health, and the protection of any cultural, social and economic rights that are indispensable to a person’s dignity (Bowie & Simon 66). They argue that the most just way to resolve conflicts among these rights is for the government to balance the needs and interests of the person or group claiming enjoyment of the right with the rights of the community/society in general. While Bowie and Simon’s theory of justice seeks to solve many issues it is not as valid as Rawls’ theory because it is based on the belief and supposition that the state wants to protect these rights rather than Rawls’ focus on the human nature of people in the government.
(5). I think of all the rights discussed, Rawls’ maxi-min principle is the most valid. This is based on the fact that it is the most humanistic. The principle acknowledges that every society has inequality and injustice, but that these elements can be limited by basically focusing on the basic human trait of wanting to be treated fairly. In other words, it touches on something everyone, whether rich or poor, powerful or weak, can relate to and understand. It is sort of like a mutually assured justice. No one wants, if in a bad position, to be treated unjustly so not knowing if they might be in a bad situation one day, they will choose a level of justice that most will agree with. Second, connecting justice to self-interest is most likely to ensure that justice is achieved. That is to say, if followed, of all the theories it is the one to find the most acceptance and therefore most likely to be adopted.
Works Cited
Bowie, Norman and Robert Simon. The Individual and the Political Order: An Introduction to Social and political Philosophy. 4th ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2008. Print.
