The Debate Between Rawls And Nozick

1125 Words5 Pages
Jenia Bello
Justice
Paper #1 The debate between Rawls and Nozick is one that can still be seen today. The solution to the problem depends on whether a person is a libertarian or a liberal. Though Rawls makes a compelling argument, Nozick’s words cannot be ignored. Rawls argument claims that justice should be fair and this fairness is achieved by strong government restraints. Rawls believes that justice should be able to be achieved by all, not only the privileged. Nozick claims that justice comes from a minimal state, one where people can achieve justice through their natural rights. Justice is redistributive; it is not solely in the hands of one person. There is a clear debate and the obvious choice is Nozick solely based on the fact that Rawls’ theory is an impractical one. In order for Rawls theory to be put into effect there needs to be no self-interest. This is not the case with human nature; society is naturally inclined to protect the self. Rawls claims that if people did not know their place in society they would follow through with his theory and eradicate all so called injustices that lead to an uneven distribution of wealth. Human beings will always pick the option, which allows them to have to largest possible gains, not one where everyone is on an even playing field. Beings would not place themselves in the lowest of the low; they wouldn’t assume themselves to be “those in need”. Competition seems to be completely ignored by Rawls, we are driven by
Get Access