Modern Philosophy Week
Student’s Name
Institution
Explain why ‘the original position’ with its ‘veil of ignorance’ is so important for Rawls’s conception of justice as fairness. John Rawls proposes that we all should presume that we are positioned behind a curtain of ignorance that thwarts us from comprehending ourselves and from intermingling with our situations(John Cottingham, 2008). We will think more critically about how societies work by ignoring our conditions. For instance, if a person knows that they are white males, they may prefer arrangements that prefer whites over blacks or males over females.
But Rawls argues that it will be most fair for the parties to choose two principles of liberty. First, that there be absolute equity in the allocation of fundamental freedom and duties, and second, that economic inequalities be allowed only if, on average, they favor the disadvantaged and marginalized members of the group. Thus, as per Rawls, communicating severe problems without a veil of ignorance and appertaining absolute values will give us the realization of how to establish society laws more objectively. And, as Rawls and several others believe, fairness is the very embodiment of justice.
- Explain Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice by relying on his example with Wilt Chamberlain.
Nozick ‘s entitlement theory of justice notes that resource allocation in the social structure is only if every individual has the right to what they own. A person who obtains a holding in compliance with the acquisition justice principle shall have the right to such holding. Also, A person receiving a holding under the law of justice in the transfer is obligated to a holding from someone else who is entitled to the possession (John Cottingham, 2008). Wilt Chamberlain’s example demonstrates that so-called patterned concepts of justice are unacceptably limiting freedom.
Nozick’s theory shows how freedom of spending can limit liberty and disrupt the entire pattern of justice. How Chamberlain acquired his wealth in D2 is not among the two ways proposed by Nozick in the entitlement theory of justice. However, nobody was infringed, the community had the option of spending their money on something else, but they voluntarily decided to watch Wilt Chamberlain. The third party got their shares, and nothing changed. Thus, people must either do without some additional things they need or be permitted to do something extra to get some of those things. What we need, even if it’s not easy to say, is an unacceptable barrier to expression.
- John Rawls is considered a political liberal (since he relies on both equality and liberty as central political values), and Robert Nozick is considered a political libertarian (since he defends liberty, but not equality as a central political value). Which approach makes more sense? Why?
Nozick ‘s theory provides an overview of a world where Wilt Chamberlain becomes very rich through voluntary exchange. Nozick suggests that you cannot govern how people earn wealth as long as it is just. The only concern is that the wealth acquired does not deprive off the third party’s privileges. D2 appears to be entirely inconsistent with Rawls’ requirements for economic inequality, and therefore should not be allowed by anyone with a Rawlsian point of view. To Nozick, economic disparities can not be unlawful as long as they emerge from voluntary transactions (John Cottingham, 2008).
Contrary to the popular belief that liberty without equality is dominated by the powerful, D2 didn’t arise simply because the basketball fans transferred their resources to Wilt Chamberlain. They traded it in return for something they valued more than the $2.50 they decided to give up voluntarily to get it. This scenario shows the importance of liberty. As much as Rawl and Nozick are on the same truck in democracy, Rawl sees a bigger tragedy in inequality. Nozick entitlement theory does not concern what end-state emerges, provided that the end-state method is attained willingly and without loss of freedom. In my view, D2 is entirely in conjunction with Rawls, and it makes more sense since you cannot regulate the amount of wealth a person acquires as long as the liberty of the people is maintained.
References
John Cottingham. (2008). western philosophy an anthology second edition, Blackwell