Business Ethics-Written Assignment for Module 2 Essay

2. 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. 3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2. The complete principle of distributive justice would say simply that a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution. A distribution is just if it arises from another just distribution by legitimate means. The legitimate means of moving from one distribution to another are specified by the principle of justice in transfer. The legitimate first "moves" are specified by the principle of justice in acquisition. Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just. The means of change specified by the principle of justice in transfer preserve justice. As correct rules of inference are truth-preserving, and any conclusion deduced via repeated application of such rules from only true premisses is itself true, so the means of transition from one situation to another specified by the principle of justice in transfer are justice-preserving, and any situation actually arising from repeated transitions in accordance with the principle from a just situation is itself just. The parallel between justice-preserving transformations and truth-preserving transformations illuminates where it fails as well

Ask yourself, “What is my contribution to society?” and “What do I expect in return?” Justice, liberty and equality remain at the forefront of the American way. Securing these, however, is key, with reference to the contentious debate on these rights. Philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick present countering views on achieving liberty and justice. On one hand, Rawls’ view of justice would maximize liberty equally among all socioeconomic groups through his notion of the Veil of Ignorance, framed in accordance with two principles. This notion supports big government, excessive taxation, and a welfare state. Nozick’s theory of justice, the Entitlement Theory, deals primarily with the unjust distribution of property, while placing personal accountability with the individual. Admittedly, Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance theory is a fair process, per se, but his unfolding of that notion, along with supporting principles actually subjugates the poor and underprivileged because it inhibits

In the article by Singer, P. (1972) “Famine, affluence, and morality” main argument is that to persuade his readers in what people of wealth and governments should help with famine relief, especially in East Bengal as one example given. Singer is furthermore also mention somewhat of and utilitarianism. Therefore, according to Mosser, K. (2010) “A concise introduction to philosophy” states that the “act utilitarianism applies the idea of utilitarianism to specific acts, emphasizing what moral is what produces the greatest good for the greats number…contrast with rule utilitarianism” (2010, Glossary).

Justice is another important ethical standard. Justice involves protecting individual rights, or preventing an injustice to an individual. Justice also requires us to compare cases to avoid discriminating or treating people differently who are alike in relevant respects. Succinctly, it means treating people fairly.

Nozick’s principles of justice in holdings can be described as only objects that were acquired justly are just. So, for an object that is justly acquired means the object was created or taken justly from natural resources. Just because you bought an object does not mean it was acquired justly. If the person or company you bought the object from acquired the object through robbery, theft, or fraud, then the object has not been justly acquired. Fraud is not considered a just transaction because you are being given false information. If something was stolen then passed down for generations to generation, Nozick would consider this object to be unjustly owned in this family. For a transaction to be voluntary, no force, coercion, threat of force,

In Distributive Justice, Robert Nozick aims to clarify the processes of distribution that can be reasonably upheld in a free society. To do so, he examines the origins of how people legitimately come to own things and applies the least intrusive set of guidelines that can be doled out in order to guarantee the most justice possible, while also respecting individual liberty. Nozick provides the Entitlement Theory, which specifies that so long as there is justice in the acquisition and transfer of holdings (things one owns), there is no injustice or infringement upon liberties of others and the parties involved are entitled their holdings. In the event there is an injustice committed, he provides the third topic of “ the rectification of injustice in holdings.” Establishing how individuals may legitimately acquire holdings is crucial to a discussion on the liberty and rights of individuals in a free, yet cooperative society. In order to further clarify how individuals originally come to own things in society, Distributive Justice later analyzes John Locke’s Theory of Acquisition. A diminishing number of unowned resources as well as the inherent problems in a free market convolute the issue.

Nozick asserts that, ‘The entitlement theory of justice in distribution is historical; whether a distribution is just depends on how it came about.’ Prior to evolving into the minimal state, there was in place a protective agency who monopolised the protection market and in the process, it vetoed the rights of non-members to use force to seek indemnification. Thus, Nozick contradicts himself because when the state vetoed the rights of non-members, ipso facto it is already unjust and as was stated, Nozick would not permit violation of any rights even where it is to propagate the overall

As part of his “Entitlement Theory of Justice”, Robert Nozick argues that patterned principles of distributive justice are ultimately unjust as they interfere with individuals’ natural rights. A principle of distributive justice is “patterned” if it “specifies that a distribution is to vary along with some natural dimension, weighted sum of natural dimensions, or lexicographic ordering of natural dimensions,” he explains. So, a principle that distributed goods in society to individuals according to need, usefulness to society, intelligence, or some combination thereof is pattered according to Nozick’s definition. In Nozick’s libertarian view, “the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be [morally] justified” without

What is justice? In real life, we all look forward to fairness, and do things according to its fairness, but most of us do not have a profound understanding of justice. In the book Justices: What Is The Right Thing To Do? Michael J. Sandel searches and explores the meaning of justices, and he invites all the readers to discuss about many controversies that raised in today’s society. Sandel exams major approaches to define justices from utilitarianism, libertarianism to freedom, and he believes that thinking about justices will engage us to think about the best way to live. There are some topics that encourages the readers to think and develop. Although some choices are difficult, we are not willing to face this kind of dilemma. How are we deal with choices that we made and not regret the decision at the end? I will be analysis strengths and weaknesses of the arguments in the following paragraphs.

Robert Gillian in ¨One Thousand Dollars¨ by O. Henry demonstrates entitlement. To have entitlement is to believe in inherently deserving privileges or special treatment of some kind. Entitlement is most prevalent in regards to money, goods, services, prejudices, or emotions. Within the first few paragraphs, it's laid out that Robert Gillians uncle has passed away, and Robert has been left one thousand dollars in inheritance money. Instead of showing gratitude for this money, Robert continually attempts to find ways to expand this newly acquired money. Robert Gillian shows entitlement when “‘He leaves me an even thousand dollars. Now, what can a man possibly do with a thousand dollars” “ I thought” said Old Bryson, showing as much interest as

The entitlement theory of justice tells us that whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just. Norzick’s two beliefs are absolute property ownership rights. His other belief is redistribution rights.

Nozick outlines his theory of entitlement which informs his aversion to redistribution. The theory of entitlement states that: “A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.” This is called the original acquisition of holdings. After this, there is the transfer of holdings when someone who was entitled to something transfers the holding to another in compliance with the principle of justice in transfer.

From Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia, it appears that one of the guiding principles in each person’s liberty is the entitlement theory and how each person obtains their goods. When considering redistribution, Nozick claims, “From the point of view of an entitlement theory, redistribution is a serious matter indeed, involving, as it does, the violation of people’s rights” (Sandel, 68). Thus, Nozick believes that redistribution acts contrary to each person’s rights to their own goods. Drawing from the ideas of Locke, “Anyone is entitled to own a thing whose value he has created” (Sandel, 72). Therefore, pooling these ideas together, personal liberties are valued so highly because when someone obtains something justly and created value in it, he or she deserves to reap the benefits. I am not sure that personal liberties should take absolute primacy over everything, but they definitely deserve a good amount of attention. My hesitation is that if everyone only has concern for their own personal liberties, that could interfere with other’s personal liberties. I think the freedoms of the broader society should also play a strong role in determining equality and liberties for

Procedural justice refers to a fair procedure to allocate goods and resources, while end-state justice determines whether the process of distribution was just. Both these terms refer to the economic justice and the fairness of wealth. Rawls mentions that there is two principles of justice one of them granting liberties to freedom, property, and to vote. The other principle stated is the social and economic inequality and how it should benefit everyone not just a few.

There are three main concept in the theory of entitlement. The first is the principle of acquisition which state that people are entitled to holdings they acquired rightfully. John Locke (1632 – 1704) is the philosopher Nozick bases the idea how originally humans reached the situation of private property. Which is, humans are allowed to use nature and mix their labor with it as long as they leave enough and as good to others (Nozick, 1974, p.174-177). After we established the first principle we reach the second one, the principle of transfer. That is, humans are entitled to holdings they gain through a transfer, under the condition that both parties were rightfully entitled to the holdings of the deal. The third principle, somewhat derived from the previous two, stated that no one is entitled to holdings he acquired not in accordance with the first and second principles. In these cases where historically people own holdings that they are not rightfully entitled to a rectification need to be considered (Nozick, 1974,