A Comparison Of John Rawls’ ‘Justice As Fairness’ And Robert Nozick’s ‘Entitlement Justice For Theory’

Background of the Justice of Fairness

John Rawls’s argument for ‘Justice as fairness’ and Robert Nozick’s argument for ‘Entitlement justice for theory.’

In terms of administrative fairness, the justice theory seems to vary according to different cultures. The justice seems to be influenced by the individual agreement on the various aspects. There are various theorists like John Rawls, Robert Nozick both who developed several theories on justice such as theories of distributive justice. In this essay, John Rawls ‘Justice as fairness’ and Robert Nozick’s ‘Entitlement justice for theory’ are illustrated so that the superior theory among these two can be rightfully identified with the help of ample number of justified reasons.

Insofar the background of the justice of fairness is concerned; it seems to be the favorable environment where the basic demands of every citizen can be fulfilled. According to Najafpour, Sara, and Hossein Harsin, the ‘Justice as fairness’ by John Rawls Indicates that in order to develop a liberal society in both the social and political institutions, it is important to do an arrangement of a proper structure in the legal, political, social, economic systems. With the help of this basic structure, these systems can distribute their benefits and positive impacts among its citizens like their fundamental rights, social recognition, financial benefits etc. The basic structure of the society effectively influences the goals, objectives, characters, attitudes and the prospects of lives of the citizens. As the citizens cannot leave a society, after being unable to cope with the structure, they are forced to live in that particular structure only.

The basic concept of the theory of John Rawls suggests that the idea of social cooperation seems to be the combination of both positive and negative aspects. Rawls indicates that to lead a decent life, the individuals need to have proper assistance from their societies. Even there should be a particular technique with which the facilities and benefits will be distributed among them (Rawls, John, page no. 233). The negative idea of this theory mainly includes the fact that no individual is determined to be poor or rich, male or female, born in the favorable racial group etc. Therefore, no individual can get extra facility or disadvantages from the social institutions. On the other hand, the positive idea includes the fact that it is basically an equal reciprocal system where the benefits and facilities are supposed to be distributed among all citizens in appropriate manner. It mainly focuses on the concept that all the citizens are equal fundamentally which ensures the equal distribution of all the facilities. The proper justice lies on this idea that the goods, produced in the collective manner need to be distributed among all citizens. Moreover, even if the inequalities happen, that should benefit the demands of the citizens who strongly require them.

Rawls’ ‘Justice as fairness’ Theory

Based on his discussion of the original position and the value and ignorance, Rawls believes that people will choose two principles to distribute justice. The first principle indicates that every person has the right to claim the appropriate amount of equal rights like other citizens to have an adequate lifestyle. The demand needs to be compatible with the sense of liberty. On the other hand, as per the viewpoint of Rawls, John, the second principle indicates to the two specific conditions such as the economic and social conditions need to be applicable to different official positions so that every employee can get the equal opportunity for further improvement and they need to provide maximum equal benefits to the non-advance society members. Therefore, it can be said that the first principle is typically related to the advantages of the political institution while the second principle is highly connected with the economic system. The first principle includes the priority which seems to decide the distribution of similar facilities among employees and the appropriate value of the liberties related to the political institution. The second principle also has two different parts. The fair distribution of opportunity and equality among all the citizens that gives them opportunities to acquire their desired educational qualification and economic opportunities regardless of their class and status. The second part is the principle of differences with which the distribution of wealth and income are distributed. It regulates the inequalities which work for the benefits of worst offs. By assuring this in the society, Rawls reimburses for the naturally happening inequalities like the born talents.

Robert Nozick’s ‘Entitlement justice for theory’ indicates the distribution of private property and justice among ordinary people. There are three constituting principles of this theory. The first principle indicates to the primary acquisition perspectives of the ordinary people. The second principle is about the procedure with which one individual acquires holding from other individual by an exchange of power. The third principle suggests the acquainting power with which one individual tries to adjust in a situation where the holding of power is distributed unjustly.

The first principle indicates self-ownership of each person, that every human being is the owner of their own talents, bodies and abilities. Therefore, they also have the right to the produced product or services by their talent. It also indicates at the labor holding seems to be illegitimate because no individual can be owned by other individual. The second principle indicates that it is the responsibility of every individual to protect the basic life, property and liberty without seeking the help of any military force or police. This process can consume huge time and cost. From the viewpoint of Letseka, Moeketsi, in order to reduce the chances for further violation of the rights by the involvement of other individuals, as per this theory, every individual needs to protect their own rights. Robert Nozick argues that the employment of other agencies reduce the effectiveness of this acquiring process. However, Fraser, Colin R opined that the distributive justice method of this theory includes some external forces who seem to be responsible for the distribution of rights among individuals. Their efforts give them the right to claim the shares of the individuals among whom the shares are distributed.

Nozick’s ‘Entitlement justice for theory’

According to Robert Nozick, every theory includes a starting points and transformational processes with which the theories embrace whatever result comes out. However, he criticizes that principle generating principle of Rawls’s theory does not have the ability to process principles. It only aims to identify end result principle. Robert Nozick criticises that this fact of Rawls’s theory seems to be very ironic because it seems great but cannot give a proper justification behind selecting the outcome of its results (Wündisch, Joachim). Robert Nozick also argues against the principle of difference of Rawls’s theory in which it is mentioned that no individual is that worse so that it can be controlled by other individual. Robert Nozick rejects this concept but cannot provide any other baseline for it and also does not provide the criteria for the people to be controlled by other. Moreover, for this principle, he also argues that it the social cooperation for the benefit of all members of the society cannot determine the advantages of the less-advanced society members in comparison to their other successful mates.

However, based on my argument, these flaws cannot be regarded as the actual backdrops of the theory of Rawls. Insofar as the first principle of this theory is concerned, Robert Nozick also agrees with the fact of liberty which every individual need to get. Robert Nozick also admits the openion of Rawls’s theory regarding the redistribution process of wealth by government among individuals. He admits that his theory does not fulfill the criteria of wealth distribution among people. Rather, the difference principle of Rawls’s theory helps to increase the possibility of the less advantage receiver people and the previous injustice victims by rectifying the wealth distribution process. However, the previous criticism of Robert Nozick regarding the difference principle is very weak because he rejects this theory but cannot be able to provide another proper view which can prove its insufficiency. For this reason, I think, Rawls’s theory already has owned some advantages over the theory of Robert Nozick. In addition to that, Rawls’s theory tends to increase the success rate of society by increasing the benefits and opportunities of individuals and also tries to maximize the outcomes. Though it has little care about the practical implementation of the human nature, it mainly covers the basic needs and demands of the people and also recommends measure for maximizing the opportunities of the victims of injustice. For this reason, I prefer the justifications of Rawls’s theory which clearly elaborates the structure and their effectiveness by illustrating the principles and their sub-parts.    

Conclusion

In this way, both the theories of John Rawls’s ‘Justice as fairness’ and Robert Nozick’s ‘Entitlement justice for theory’ are analyzed critically in order to identify the most effective theory in comparison to the other. The analysis has been done from the perspective of John Rawls which strengthen the fact of equal distribution of power among each and every citizen. This theory mainly promotes the protection of self-ownership of every citizen along with the equal distribution of all available facilities among them. However, the modern scientists needs to work more on strongly establishing the fact of Rawls in which he claims that benefit of all citizen can increase the potentiality of the improvement of non-advanced citizens. Rawls does not prove this fact with proper justification for which the researchers need to provide ample umber of practical examples.

Reference List

Fraser, Colin R. “John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and the Difference Principle: Finding Common Ground.” Inquiries Journal 3.04 (2011)

Lawrence, Michael Anthony. “‘Justice-as-Fairness’ as Judicial Guiding Principle: Remembering John Rawls and the Warren Court.” (2015)

Letseka, Moeketsi. “Ubuntu and justice as fairness.” Mediterranean journal of social sciences 5.9 (2014): 544

Najafpour, Sara, and Hossein Harsij. “The Impact of Rawls and MacIntyre Theory of Justice on National Cohesion in Multicultural Societies.” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 3.7 (2013): 202

Rawls, John. “Justice as fairness: political not metaphysical.” Philosophy & Public Affairs (1985): 223-251

Wündisch, Joachim. “Nozick’s proviso: Misunderstood and misappropriated.” Rationality, Markets and Morals 4.79 (2013)