Why did Nozick write both ‘different’ and ‘differential’ in the same paragraph?

Why is Nozick against patterned distribution?

Nozick’s Principles are Non-Patterned: Nozick’s principles propose that the acquisition and transfer of goods is always just so long as we do so freely (and provided that we do not make others worse off)—and a system which allows this sort of freedom of giving, purchasing, trading, and so on will not result in any …

What is Nozick’s theory?

Nozick, in general, contends that people are born with fundamental individual rights. These individual rights are paramount and that there is no need for a system to achieve moral equilibrium. He rejects all end-result theories, i.e. distributive theories such as Rawls theory of justice.

What are the three principles that Nozick outlines in relation to defining the justice of one’s holdings?

To turn these general outlines into a specific theory we would have to specify the details of each of the three principles of justice in holdings: the principle of acquisition of holdings, the principle of transfer of holdings, and the principle of rectification of violations of the first two principles.

How does Nozick understand distributive justice ‘?

This gives us Nozick’s entitlement theory of distributive justice: a distribution of wealth obtaining in a society as a whole is a just distribution if everyone in that society is entitled to what he has, i.e. has gotten his holdings in accordance with the principles of acquisition, transfer, and rectification.

What point is Nozick trying to make with this example?

What point does Nozick want to make by using this example? Nozick’s famous Wilt Chamberlain argument is an attempt to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty.

What did Nozick believe in?

According to Nozick, anyone who acquired what he has through these means is morally entitled to it. Thus the “entitlement” theory of justice states that the distribution of holdings in a society is just if (and only if) everyone in that society is entitled to what he has.

How does Nozick describe his theory of justice compared to others ‘?

According to Nozick, anyone who acquired what he has through these means is morally entitled to it. Thus the “entitlement” theory of justice states that the distribution of holdings in a society is just if (and only if) everyone in that society is entitled to what he has.

What are Nozick’s three principles of justice?

We have seen that Nozick’s theory is based on three key principles. Nozick put forward the claim that, inorder to deserve something, a person must be entitled to it according to the principle of justice in acquisition, the principle of justice in transfer, or the principle of rectification.

What are the principal differences between Rawls and Nozick’s ethical theories?

By his own words Rawls = “left-liberalism”. Differences: The primary difference between the two is in the treatment of the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of wealth (and even on that issue Nozick eventually flinches — see #1 below).

What is the critique of Nozick against Rawls?

In his first book, Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) he argued brilliantly that Rawls principles of Liberty and Difference actually contradicted each other. Nozick claimed that any government which forcibly taxed rich people and redistributed their wealth to help poor people was violating the liberty of the rich.

How does Nozick’s conception of fairness differ from Rawls’s?

Rawls’ great insight was that economic inequalities can be to the benefit of society and the poor, and that the desirable inequalities do just that. Nozick’s was that the way to make those happen is through liberty and voluntary exchange.

What does Nozick mean when he insists that liberty upsets patterns ‘?

Nozick argues that:



“Liberty upsets patterns”: People who are free to bargain and trade will use that freedom in ways that, over time, will make some people better off than others, even if they start from a position of perfect equality.