-
A Critique Of Robert Nozick's Political Philosophy
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 3]
Page 3 of 3
-
-
-
1.7 AIM OF THE STUDY
The aim of
the work is to critically examines Robert Nozick’s political philosophy
which is contains his book Anarchy, State and Utopia. According to
Nozick is to show that the minimal state is morally justified. By a
minimal state Nozick means a state that function essentially as a “night
watchman†with powers limited to those necessary to protect – citizens
against violence, theft and fraud. Nozick adopts and defends what he
calls “The Entitlement Theoryâ€. By way of explaining the entitlement
theory of justice Althan (10) maintains that Nozick’s vision of
legitimate state power thus contrasts remarkably with that of Rawls
argues that the state should have whatever powers are necessary to
ensure that those citizens who are least well-off are as well off as
they can be (though these powers must be consistent with a variety of
basic rights and freedom). This viewpoint is derived from Rawls’ theory
of justice one principle of which is that an unequal distribution of
wealth and income is acceptable only if those at the button are better
off than they would be under any other distribution. According to Althan
(11) Nozick’s response to such argument is to claim that they rest on
the false conception of distributive justice; they wrongly define a just
distribution in terms of the pattern it exhibits at a given time
(example, an equal distribution or a distribution that unequal to a
certain extent) or in terms of the historical circumstances surrounding
its development (example those who worked the hardest have more) rather
than in terms of the nature of the transactions through which
distribution came about. For Nozick, any distribution of “holdings,†as
he calls them, no matter how unequal, is just if (and only if) it arises
from a just distribution through legitimate means. One legitimate means
is the appropriation of something that is owned in circumstance where
the acquisition would not disadvantage others. A second means is the
voluntary transfer of ownership of holdings to someone else. A third
means is the rectification of past injustices in the acquisition or
transfer of holdings. According to Nozick, anyone who acquire what he
has through these means is morally entitled to it. Thus, the entitlement
theory of justice state that the distribution of holdings in a society
is just if (and only if) everyone in that society. Thus the aim of this
work is to show that Nozick’s moral justification for the state is far
from compelling on the ground that the independent (few individual)
where force to pay for the services they initially do not want may be
they do not have money to pay for security but the dominant protection
force them to pay, as such Holmes (40) is of the opinion that since the
minimal state has considerable power, it is not different from a state
with all powers usually associated with it. The paper is of the view
that at time it is not only necessary but desirable to redistribute
wealth and resources so as to help those in need. Moreso, possession of
wealth by individuals might be a product of chance rather than talent
and ability. We should at this point look at Nozick’s on moral rights in
order to have clear idea of state of nature right.
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 3]
Page 3 of 3
-
