John Rawls and Robert Nozick

Steven Rossen

Subject:John Rawls & Robert Nozick

The argument is would we all be content going into a random lottery not knowing what family, economic class, and social structure we will be born into? John Rawls expresses that things are unfair and that the government hides behind the illusion that there is some sort of social equality. One of the most prevailing points for this argument is the almighty veil of ignorance. Imagine we are all in our prenatal stage not knowing what we will be born into, either the ghettos of Chicago to a drug using mother or a wealthy family in suburbs. The argument is if we all knew nothing about where we would end up we would want a fair equal society. For this to happen we need good schools, good hospitals,a righteous government, and proper housing. John Rawls also states that Utilitarianism is not enough to satisfy our needs we need a system where the the talents of the most skilled and lucky benefit everybody. This is nowhere near a merit based system and the argument is we should live in a society where everybody gets equal chance at life success.

The argument being made is don't we all as human beings have a right to own all of our possessions and not have to give up those possessions for the greater good? This is what Robert Nozick and the article is arguing the right of no paternalistic legislation, no moral legislation, and no redistribution of income from the most wealthy to the poor. In this article it argues that why do we have to give our wealth to help the poor isn't that taking away our right of self possession. Self possession is very important we should have the ability to decide what we want to spend our money on. When the most wealthy are being taxed their earnings are being taken away and thus they are in a forced labor situation isn't that slavery? This is what the articles argument argues that we should have the right of self worth when we earn our money justifiable in the free market. So if...