![]() ![]() Much focus has been given to the enormous degree to which these two views apparently differ, but I believe that a closer examination of the Wilt Chamberlain argument shows that the two philosophers differed less in their concept of justice and goodness than is usually perceived. The purpose of the example is to demonstrate how we can not govern economic inequality in the way that Rawls would apparently suggest without sacrificing a large amount of liberty. ![]() In chapter 7 of Nozick’s book, he gives an example of a world where Wilt Chamberlain becomes very rich through voluntary exchange (Nozick 160-162). ![]() To Nozick, as long as economic inequalities arise from voluntary exchange, they cannot be unjust. Nozick believed that no one had any business “permitting” economic inequalities at all. Rawls wrote that economic inequalities should only be permitted if they are to the benefit of society, and especially if they are to the benefit of its least advantaged members this has come to be known as “the difference principle”. Specifically, Nozick takes issue with Rawls’ conception of distributive justice as it pertains to economic inequalities. A large portion of Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, The State and Utopia is dedicated to refuting the theories of John Rawls. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |