Theories of justice: Rawls, Nozick, and beyond
What makes the distribution of wealth and opportunity in a society fair?
Rawls and the veil of ignorance
John Rawls asked us to choose the principles of a society from behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether we would be rich or poor, talented or not, or which group we would belong to. He argued we would pick equal basic liberties for all, fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle: inequalities are allowed only if they benefit the least advantaged.
Nozick and entitlement
Robert Nozick objected that justice is about how holdings came about, not what pattern they form. If people acquire things fairly and transfer them voluntarily, the result is just, however unequal. His example: if many fans each freely pay a little to watch a famous basketball player, the player becomes rich, and nothing unjust has happened.
Further perspectives
Communitarians argue that both Rawls and Nozick picture people as isolated choosers and neglect the communities that shape them. The capabilities approach, developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, measures justice by what people are actually able to do and be, such as being healthy, educated, and able to take part in public life.
Flashcard
Choosing rules without knowing your place in society
Check your understanding
Behind Rawls' veil of ignorance, why would people choose to protect the least advantaged?