C

C
o
o
r
r
p
p
o
o
r
r
a
a
t
t
e
e
S
S
o
o
c
c
i
i
a
a
l
l
R
R
e
e
s
s
p
p
o
o
n
n
s
s
i
i
b
b
i
i
l
l
i
i
t
t
y
y

John Rawls and Robert Nozick present two competing theories of justice
Compare and contrast the two
Which view is more persuasive and why?
What implications does your position have regarding the structure of our society?
Module No: 26160
Student Number: 200912136
Student Number 200912136
1

John Rawls and Robert Nozick both present theories of justice, their views are very distinct
and on some level similar. Rawls theory comes from a utilitarian view, utilitarian is a doctrine
that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority on the other hand
Nozicks theory is based on John Lockes ideas of natural rights.
The theories have much in common as many of their ideas can be seen in todays
society; Nozicks ideas are based upon the ideas put forth from John Locke. Lockes ideas
are imbedded within the U.S constitution, quoting Locke directly; his ideas are very
influential in U.S. society. Other ideas put forth such as the right to trade, the free market
where governments have no influence can also be interpreted in this fashion.
On the other hand Rawls ideas can be seen within the United Kingdom where a
welfare state is in place to protect the least advantaged of society. Other countries have
sought to extend their welfare system, such as Germany and the Netherlands. Other factors
of Rawls theory can also be seen today, such as the fact that any individual, no matter what
background they come from can acquire a position of power, an example of this is that
anybody can become a member of parliament, prime minister or even the president of the
United States.
John Rawls theory is called Justice as Fairness and was published in Rawls book A Theory
of Justice in 1971. The theory is divided into two principles; however Rawls has arranged the
principles in order of priority, so as if the two principles were to ever clash then the first
principle would take precedent over the second, These principles are to be arranged in a
serial order with the first principle prior to the second. This ordering means that a departure
from the institutions of equal liberty required by the first principle cannot be justified by, or
compensated for, by greater social and economic advantages (Rawls, 1989, 61). Moreover
the principles are intended to be a single coherent theory.
The first principle also known as the principle of equal liberty states each person is to have
an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a
similar system of liberty for all (Rawls, 1989, 302). The second principle is broken down into
two sub-principles (a) called the difference principle and (b) called the principle of fair
equality of opportunity. The principle states social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent
with the just savings principle, an (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under
conditions of faire equality of opportunity (Rawls, 1989, 302).
Student Number 200912136
2

Rawls explains the first principle, the basic liberties of citizens are, roughly speaking,
political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for public office) together with freedom of
speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person
along with the right to hold (personal) property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest and
seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law. These liberties are required to be equal
by the first principle, since citizens of a just society are to have the same basic rights (Rawls,
1989, 61). The notion of basic rights entails that certain rights such as freedom of speech
and to own personal property are available to everyone in society no matter what race, sex
and political standing an individual comes from.
The second principle according to Rawls (1989) means that regardless of an individuals
social background, race or sex. An individual has the right to opportunities, such as offices
and positions meaning that everyone has an equal chance of obtaining and holding these
positions, an example of this in the present day is that anybody can become a member of
parliament.
Rawls goes on to say while the distribution of wealth and income need not be equal (Rawls,
1989, 61). However freeman (2008) interprets this it basically requires that a society is to
institute the economic system that would make the least advantaged class better off than
they would be in any other feasible economic system, compatible with maintaining citizens
equal basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity. In todays society, namely the United
Kingdom a welfare system is in place to protect the least fortunate/least advantaged people
in society.
Nozicks theory is known as entitlement theory and follows John Lockes work of
natural rights, entitlement theory comprises of three main principles. The first principle states
a person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is
entitled to that holding (Nozick, 1974, 151). The second principle states a person who
acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else
entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding (Nozick, 1974, 151). The third principle
states no one is entitled to the holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2 (Nozick,
1974, 151).
The first principle of Nozicks theory means that when an individual acquires an item
(holding), they are entitled to keep and own that item as long as it is in accordance with
justice in acquisition. Nozick (1974) does explain this further by saying to appropriate
anything not already owned, provided he leaves enough and as good for others i.e.
provided his appropriation leaves them no worse off (Nozick, 1974, 153). However no
Student Number 200912136
3

bench mark is given to how an individual may be worse off compared to Rawls who gives a
clear definition stating worst-off person must be no worse off than he would be under any
other possible arrangement (Rawls, 1989, 174).
The second principle of the entitlement theory is fairly easy to grasp as it reflects the
free-market and trade. The third principle according to Nozick would not be needed if the
world were just, Nozick does go on to say "a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the
holdings they possess under the distribution" (Nozick, 1974, 151). However this rule is
seldom followed, "some people steal from others, or defraud them, or enslave them, seizing
their product and preventing them from living as they choose, or forcibly exclude others from
competing in exchanges" (Nozick, 1974, 152). This is the primary reason Nozick created the
third principle.
Nozicks entitlement theory is based upon John Lockes ideas; Nozick reinforces the
ideas of the free market and private property. Nozick is also a supporter of the minimal state
and non-interference by the state; according to Nozick we have absolute rights to life and
liberty, and are also able to form absolute rights to property. But the mere fact that we have
rights does not guarantee that they are always going to be respected. How can we protect
ourselves against those prepared to violate our rights? In present societies we have
institutions to protect ourselves. We may call the police, or take those who violate our rights
to court (Nozick, 1991, 10). The belief in a minimal state is strong; the function of the state
in part would be to reinforce the third principle of the entitlement theory.
The two theories, a theory of justice by John Rawls and Entitlement theory by Robert Nozick
contrast sharply. One of the main points of Nozick's idea is the second principle; the second
principle can be interpreted as the free market. However when we leave it to a competitive
market to determine the availability and price of goods and services, we allow peoples well-
being to be deeply affected by supply and demand. There is no assurance that these will
allocate resources to meet a utilitarian (Corlett, 1991, 314-315). In this fashion the free
market prevails and Nozick's second principle is reinforced, on the other hand Rawls theory
is predominantly aimed at helping the least fortunate in society, the free market does not
contribute to helping this, in fact it widens the gap between rich and poor.
The most notable differences between the two theories are that on a basic level,
Rawls theory is predominantly aimed at equal rights (equality) for everyone and protecting
these rights, moreover benefitting the least advantaged in society take second priority. On
the other hand Nozick theory outlines principles of ownership (liberty) and trade between
individuals or entities, this view is on a very basic level of the theories, moreover when a
Student Number 200912136
4

deeper examination of these theories takes place there are similarities between the two, but
there are also difference.
Rawls theory states that everyone has equal basic rights and liberties and if these
rights or liberties were to be infringed upon for any reason, they should only be infringed
upon to a degree where it benefits the least advantaged in society. While Nozick has a
different view, due to the fact of his second principle, Nozick states that when an individual
manufactures, creates or invents something, they have rights to own that thing (e.g. patent
for a new engine design). Things come into the world already attached to people having
entitlements over them (Nozick 1974, 160), the thought of taking an individuals belongings
to give to the less fortunate or disadvantaged is unmerited and violates their rights. Nozick
goes on to say holdings to which (....) people are entitled may not be seized, even to
provide equality of opportunity for others (Nozick, 1974, 235). This is in direct conflict with
Rawls second principle (a) of helping the most disadvantaged people, Nozick finds depriving
someone of their property or redistributing wealth to be immoral.
Both theories do pertain to society in different ways, however only when these
theories crossover at certain points, such as Nozick's view of acquiring holdings (goods),
which can then be interpreted as the free market which encourages greed and the resulting
fallout from that. But on the other hand Rawls principle to redistribute wealth to help the less
fortunate, go hand in hand. Both theories have problems and solutions to each other.
The theory that is more persuasive for me is Rawls theory of Justice, predominantly due to
the fact that I am from India and the key philosophy in India is to respect all life, because of
this philosophy I cannot stand idly by and not help the least fortunate of society.
On an objective note however I still agree with Rawls theory, the redistribution of
wealth is key to the society within the United Kingdom as it helps to create a level playing
field for everyone, instead of widening the gap between rich and poor, something which
Nozick advocated.
Nozick's ideas does however have its lures, the notion of a minimal state that does
not interfere with the members of society and all that is acquired by an individual over their
life time is there's and the state will help protect their property. However Nozick did not
define how the state would be funded. Nozick's ideas have at their heart the liberty of
individuals; however as time goes by the distribution of wealth will get concentrated to a
smaller and smaller proportion of society, in essence destroying the liberty of the poorer
members of society as even though they have the negative freedom , they do not have the
Student Number 200912136
5

means to achieve all they may wish. Because of this Rawlsian approach has greater
advantages to society and individuals, as the society will be able to grow and flourish.
Rawlsian thinking can be seen in many areas of society, take the recent banking
crisis of 2008-2009 for example, the U.K. government had to step in and bail out struggling
banks because the banking system could not be allowed to fail as it would cause further
reaching problems throughout society. The government took a utilitarian approach that was
to benefit the greatest number of people; in turn a Rawlsian approach was also taken, in
essence to benefit the least advantaged banks. Banks support the free market by providing
organisations and companies with loans so they can compete within the free market,
however in turn by redistributing wealth, Nozick's entitlement theory was supported.
Primarily the free market was supported, which Nozick's principles are loosely based upon.
My positions as a follower of Rawls and concerning the implications regarding the structure
of our society, in my opinion is a well thought out theory, as it looks to better society as a
whole. The implications however are far reaching; we can see that different countries have
adopted different views concerning Nozick and Rawls.
In the U.S. the democrats have traditionally sought a Rawlsian approach; they
support the redistribution of wealth to help the less fortunate, while the Republicans have
adopted a Nozickian stance, pushing for tax cuts and reducing government interference
within society. The American dream is an advocate of Nozick's ideas due to the fact that
fortune and success are gained through hard work and talent.
Another county which is following closely behind America is Australia, moving to the
extremes of Nozick's idea of individualism and the philosophy of why should I pay for
someone else to benefit. This can be seen in policy implementation over the past decade.
Closer to home in the United Kingdom, Nozickian ideas are not completely forgotten
about, recently the government introduced higher university fees for students. Students
know have to pay up to 10000 per year for tuition, moreover pensions are coming under
scrutiny as the government is asking people to make their own arrangements for their
pensions.
With Nozick's view the divide between rich and poor will widen, this can be seen in
certain areas of the United States, where the inequality of wealth is reflected in the high GINI
coefficient of 0.45 (C.I.A, 2007). Jargowsky (1997) claims that there is a link between low
incomes and crime within ghettos; moreover due to low incomes and the increasing divide
between rich and poor, it infringes upon the liberty of these people. Because they do not
Student Number 200912136
6

have the means or the freedom to live where they want, pay for the best schools/education,
it further exacerbates the problem. This increases the rich- poor divide, on a basic level
Nozick grants liberty and freedom to the rich in society while turning a blind eye to the poor
of society.
Nozicks view can create a selfish, individualist society, where people are
encouraged to consume materialist goods and services rather than have care and
compassion for their fellow human beings. On another note Rawlsian ideas encourage a
society to pool its resources and work together to benefit the whole of man kind
However it is not all in Nozickian favour, Rawlsian does have its support in society,
most predominantly in the U.K., the U.K. is a welfare state. Health care, education,
unemployment benefits are all part of government spending, the members of society pay for
everybody within society to have these benefits available to them.
In conclusion john Rawls and Robert Nozick do both present competing theories of justice,
on one hand liberty takes precedence but on the other equality takes precedence. The way I
have come to my conclusion is by asking a simple question, which theory has the potential
to benefit society and mankind? However the answer is not as simple as the question, both
theories posses benefits and drawbacks.
Rawls theory does have a profound argument which is derived from the utilitarian
perspective, to benefit the least advantaged within society and that all people are equally
capable of obtaining any position of power. On many levels this can be seen throughout the
world, recently in 2005 Barack Obama took office and became president of the United States,
reaffirming the notion that offices and positions open to all under conditions of faire equality
of opportunity (Rawls, 1989, 302).
However Nozick's entitlement theory which shows great support for the free market
and property rights of individuals, however there are great problems with the theory when
related to society as a whole, the most profound and disturbing problem that I have found, is
the fact that the divide between rich and poor will deepen with time if Nozick's theory is
implemented, and in the long term will begin to infringe upon the liberty of the members of
society, something that Nozick sought to protect.
Overall the contrast between the two theories is very different, but when applied to
society can have very deep affects within the culture of a society; however today society is is
a very different place compared to when these theories were published, but there ideas may
Student Number 200912136
7

still bear fruit in the future. My own opinion on the matter is that both theories have merit
within society and also there drawback.

Student Number 200912136
I

Bibliography
Barry B. (1973), The Liberal Theory of Justice, London, Oxford University Press
Brighouse H. (2004), Justice, Cambridge, Polity Press
Campbell T. (2010), Justice, 3
rd
edition, Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan
Central Intelligence Agency (2007), Distribution of Family Income: GINI Index [Online],
Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
[Accessed: 15th December 2011]
Corlett J. (1991), Equality and Liberty, London, MacMillan Academic
Jargowsky P. A. (1997), Poverty and place: ghettos, barrios, and the American city, New
York, The Russell Sage Foundation
Nozick R. (1981), Reading Nozick Essays on Anarchy, State and Utopia, Oxford, Rowman
and Littlefield
Nozick R. (1991), Property, Justice and the Minimal State, Cambridge, Polity Press
Raphael D. (1980), Justice and Liberty, London, The Athlone Press
Samuel F. (2008), Original Position [Online], Stanford, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,
Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/#ArgForDifPri [Accessed: 15
th

December 2011]
Sen A. (2009), The idea of justice, London, Penguin Books Ltd
Rawls J. (1989), A Theory of Justice, 9
th
Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Rawls J. (2002), The Law of Peoples, 4
th
Edition, Cambridge, Harvard University Press
Rawls J. (2003), Justice as Fairness A Restatement, 3
rd
Edition, Cambridge, Harvard
University Press
Rawls J. (2006), Rawls Law of People A Realistic Utopia?, 4
th
Edition, Oxford, Blackwell
Publishing
Velasquez M. G. (2012), Business Ethics Concepts and Cases, 7
th
Edition, London, Pearson
Education