preview

John Rawls And Robert Nozick Vs. Nozick

Better Essays

What does justice mean and what role should the government play in maintaining it? Does it mean to redistribute wealth to help those who are less fortunate or does it mean allowing individuals to freely give to those who are poor? This question has been debated for a long time and will still be debated for years to come. This paper will look at the writings of two philosophers, John Rawls and Robert Nozick, and compare and contrast their beliefs on what that question means and whether or not one theory is more beneficial to society in the long run.
Throughout history there has always been a dilemma between freedom and equality. Some people think they are one in the same but there are differences. Freedom is the ability of individuals to …show more content…

1371). Rawls realized that people would compare themselves to others based on their class or social status. This is why people in society should not know their place so they would be more willing to help those who are poor in society. He goes on to say that, “the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain” (Kramnick, 2009, pg. 1371). Rawls believed people would give consent to enter into a sort of social contract when they enter into society.
He believed there are two principles of justice. The first principle is that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others” (Kramnick, 2009, pg. 1374). This means that all people have the basic human rights which results in the equal rights of all people. The second principle is that “social and economic inequalities” should be for the advantage of everyone and all positions and offices need to be open to all (Kramnick, 2009, pg. 1374). Rawls argued that if inequalities were to take place it should be for the advantage of everyone in society.
The first principle guarantees such individual liberties as the right to vote and run for office as well as freedom of speech, and freedom of thought. The second principle ensures that although “the distribution of wealth and income need not be

Get Access