The 's Vs. Nozick 's Theory On Justice

2035 WordsMay 4, 20159 Pages
Audra Wayco Second Term Paper PSC 342 Rawl’s vs Nozick’s Theory on Justice: Comparing and Contrasting 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 be their own person and make choices that are based on their own individuality. Equality is the ability to exercise rights so that everyone is treated fairly in all parts of society. I do not believe you can have freedom without equality, but total equality takes many years and is often impossible to achieve. There is a dilemma because often in order to achieve one aspect the other has to be given up. Rawls Theory of Justice John Rawls wrote his book, “Theory of Justice,” in which he described how people are rational beings but often times people can focus on themselves. This causes people to see justice
Open Document