Distributive Justice (Rawls and Nozick)

Concept and tradition

Aristotle distinguished distributive from corrective justice and held that distribution should be proportional to merit. Utilitarianism maximises total happiness but can sacrifice minorities.

Rawls: justice as fairness

Rawls asked which principles people would choose in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. Reasoning by maximin, they would adopt: (1) equal basic liberties for all; (2) social and economic inequalities attached to offices open under fair equality of opportunity and to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (the difference principle). The first principle has lexical priority.

Nozick: entitlement theory

Nozick judged distributions historically rather than by end-state patterns. Holdings acquired and transferred justly, or rectified, are just; redistributive taxation is "on a par with forced labour". Only a minimal state is legitimate. His Wilt Chamberlain example argues that patterns cannot be maintained without interfering with liberty.

Comparison and alternatives

Rawls represents egalitarian liberalism, Nozick libertarianism. Walzer proposed complex equality across spheres of goods; Sen focused on capabilities rather than resources.

References

1. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
2. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
3. Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice. Basic Books.
4. Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
5. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, Book V.