Rawls and nozick compare contrast. Comparison Of John Rawls And Robert Nozick Politics Essay 2022-10-16

John Rawls and Robert Nozick were both influential political philosophers who made significant contributions to the field of distributive justice, which is concerned with the fair distribution of goods and benefits within a society. However, they had different ideas about how this should be achieved.

Rawls was a proponent of distributive justice based on the principle of distributive fairness, which states that the distribution of goods and benefits within a society should be based on a principle of equal liberty and equality of opportunity. He argued that a just society should be organized around a set of principles that are chosen behind a "veil of ignorance," which means that people do not know their own social position or natural abilities when deciding on these principles. Rawls believed that under these conditions, people would choose a principle of equal liberty and equality of opportunity because they would not know if they would be among the most advantaged or disadvantaged members of society.

Nozick, on the other hand, was a libertarian philosopher who argued that distributive justice should be based on the principle of individual rights. He believed that people have a natural right to keep the fruits of their labor, and that the role of the state should be limited to protecting individual rights and enforcing contracts. Nozick argued that a just society should allow individuals to freely engage in voluntary exchanges and accumulate wealth, as long as they do not violate the rights of others.

One key difference between Rawls and Nozick is their views on redistribution. Rawls believed that redistributive policies, such as progressive taxation, were necessary to ensure that everyone had an equal opportunity to participate in society. Nozick, on the other hand, opposed redistributive policies because he believed that they violated the principle of individual rights. He argued that the state should not have the power to take the wealth of some individuals and give it to others.

Another difference between Rawls and Nozick is their views on the role of the state. Rawls believed that the state had a responsibility to ensure that everyone had an equal opportunity to participate in society, and that this could be achieved through redistributive policies and other forms of social support. Nozick, on the other hand, believed that the state should have a limited role in society and that individuals should be free to pursue their own goals and interests.

In conclusion, Rawls and Nozick had different ideas about how distributive justice should be achieved. Rawls believed in a principle of equal liberty and equality of opportunity, and argued that the state had a responsibility to ensure that everyone had an equal opportunity to participate in society. Nozick, on the other hand, believed in the principle of individual rights and argued that the state should have a limited role in society. Both philosophers made significant contributions to the field of distributive justice, and their ideas continue to be debated and discussed by philosophers and policymakers today.