While on the one hand, Rawl understands justice based on distributive shares based on moral obligations, Nozick proposes a theory of justice based on libertarian rights enumerated above. The libertarian rights according to Nozick are original absolute self-ownership, rights of a common use of the external world, rights of primary acquisition. Nozick’s theory of justice holds that an action is just if it does not violate other people’s libertarian rights. Valentyne argues that Nozick holds a libertarian theory of justice as opposed to Rawl’s distributive theory of justice (88).Despite his deviation from Rawl’s distributive theory of justice Nozick believes that sound adult humans have certain undeniable rights including a right to bodily honor which makes illegal murdering, persecuting, or hurting the holder of the right Valentyne (88). So that in the long run, each member of the society gets what is entitled to him or her Rawl (275). It proposes the allocation of opportunities and wealth on the basis of merits and moral obligations. Distributive justice deals with fair allocation of resources on the basis of ethical and moral principles of the society (275). In chapter seven Nozick provides an articulate critique upon Rawl’s theory of distributive justice (150). Robert Nozick’s Critique of Rawl’s Distributive Justice Nozick’s sense of state is that of a coercive organization that for a given territory has effectual domination on the use of weapons to enforce its will and interests Valentyne (87). Therefore, Nozick proposes the replacement of the present state with a minimal state which safeguards people only against violence, theft, fraud, and violation of contract Valentyne (86). According to Valentyne, Nozick holds that it is not possible to have a legitimate state especially one that enjoys absolute legitimacy (86). The state and its legitimacy are one of the main themes in Robert Nozick’s book.
0 kommentar(er)
