Principles of Justice by John Rawls and Robert Nozick

This paper investigates which of John Rawls' and Robert Nozick's justice principles Britain would benefit more from if it chose to support one of them. Rawls' distributive justice theory was founded on the premise that society is a cooperative structure for the mutual benefit of all persons (Rawl). Thus, according Rawls' fairness principle, the role of a nation such as Britain is the distribution and re-distribution of well-being such as resources, welfare, rights, happiness, and capacities. However, Nozick's entitlement theory was built on the assumption that governments should not meddle with existing distribution patterns (Nozick). To put it another way, Nozick prioritizes individual rights. Based on the analysis provided below, the position of this paper is that Britain would stand to benefit more from endorsing Rawls theory compared to Nozick's principle of justice.
The purpose of the work of Rawls was bringing two fundamental political philosophies together: egalitarianism and libertarianism. The proponents of egalitarianism insisted that there was need to redistribute wealth while libertarians argued that this would lead to the infringement of the individual freedoms and rights (Brown). The theory of Rawls attempts to resolve this division by agreeing to the demands of the libertarians in respecting people's freedom as well as meeting the egalitarian demand of achieving equality in the redistribution of economic resources (Corlett 2). Thus, Rawls theory is a hybrid which combines two justice institutions that are in conflict. According to Rawls, a society which is just operates under equal rights for all. Rawl argues that there is no doubt that the rich enjoy more rights in any society. Thus, to guarantee maximum equal basic rights, the difference principle should be considered as the core of distributive justice. In addition to this, this principle asserts that wealth difference among people can only be morally justified when wealth that the rich people have is used to provide maximum benefits to the poor. Apart from this, Rawls agreement is that for this basic principle to be achieved, the individuals must have a 'veil' of ignorance. Rawls argument is that individuals in the society ought to imagine that they know nothing about their wealth, personal talent or social class. Putting themselves in this basic ignorance the fair principles to run the society are easily developed. The point that Rawls makes is that when people know their position in the society, they will tend to be concerned especially for the less fortunate in the society. Endorsement of Rawls theory by Britain can be appealing because of its practicability. The argument by Rawls can be used to form a foundation for a just and efficient society.
On the other hand, Nozick opposes the argument on liberty provided by Rawls in that any government that taxed the rich people forcibly and had their wealth redistributed to the poor violated their liberty. Nozick argues that no government has the right to infringe on the individuals rights by taking their resources or money and giving it to others. For example, footballers who acquire their resources and wealth through talent should not be forced to give back to the society. They should do it under their own terms and conditions. Nozick makes the point that wealth or resources accumulated through natural talent or hard work should not be redistributed. The belief towards this thinking is that an individual should be left to make this kind of decision of whether to help those who are less disadvantaged in the society and the state should not in any way influence their decision (Robert). For instance, if Britain endorsed this principle, the government purpose would only be protecting the rights of people in addition to protection from crimes such as robbery, assault, or fraud. Nozick felt that nations should be minimal states where the people have rights to property, life and liberty. The bottom line in the thinking or theory of Nozick is that the only distribution that should occur is natural distribution that preserves justice in acquisition and the transfer can be justified. Nozick's idea is about the respect of the natural rights of individuals, specifically their self-ownership right and rights to property. This theory tends to treat each person separately and insists in respecting autonomy. Thus, a person has a right to what they produce because they are the owners of the labor that they originally invested in creation of the product (Robert).
Based on the underpinnings of these two principles of justice, Britain would stand to benefit more from Rawls theory of distributive justice. As it is, Nozick's theory advocates for an individualistic society where every person puts their interest first without showing compassion to others. Adopting such a principle of justice would see the gap between the rich and the poor skyrocket. This is because; history shows that initial acquisition of property was not just as it was based on slavery, exploitation, theft and colonization. This means the world or society is already unjust and the only way to address the injustice and disparities is through redistribution of wealth as proposed by Rawls. Rawls principle would ensure that there is generation of institutions and laws that offer equal benefits to all individuals. Currently, Britain faces a problem of inequality and endorsing the theory advocated by Nozick would bring more disparity among many people aggrieved. Additionally, by Britain endorsing the theory by Nozick, it would mean that it reduces the funds collected from taxation. This would lead to lack of better health services, and poor education programs. This would only affect the poor in the society while the rich excel in their ambitions in life. Continued unequal treatment can lead Britain to a path of social unrest. However, endorsing Rawls theory of distributive justice puts the country at a path of preserving civil harmony. Importantly, all human beings are equal in the respect that they should all be provided with dignity. Moreover, human beings should be treated as equals irrespective of the property or talent that they may have. Thus, Britain endorsing the idea of distributive justice by Rawls would confirm the commitment of the government to reduce acts of discrimination such as racism. When people in the society feel that they are treated fairly and equal opportunities are provided for them to excel, they depend on each other and be their brother's keeper. Thus, the most prudent endorsement that Britain can make is on Rawls theory of distributive justice as it promotes a fair and equal society for all individuals. The country would standard to benefit more from this theory than from the one by Nozick.








Works Cited
Corlett, J. Angelo. Equality and Liberty: Analyzing Rawls and Nozick. New York: St. Martin's,
1991. Print.
Robert, Nozick. "Anarchy, State and Utopia." New York basic book (1974).
Rawls, John. "A Theory of Justice." Harvard University Press (1971).