End state vs Historical Principles of Distributive Justice o End state Justice pattern Who has what now and distribution Egalitarianism Rawls Difference Principle Distribution is just insofar as things are distributed according to some structural A distribution is just insofar as it came about in a just manner Two societies have same distribution o One is just because acquired in a just manner o Other was not theft Patterned vs Unpatterned Principles of Distributive Justice o Historical o Patterned o Unpatterned Identify justice of distribution with some other natural dimension identifiable independent of justice Can be end state or historical Do not identify justice of a distribution with some other natural dimension Can only be historical o An objection to Patterned Principles Liberty upsets patterns Wilt Chamberlin o Charges 25 cents for each person who wants to see him play o He gains 250K while we have lost 25 cents each o Deviates from egalitarianism so end state is unjust Egalitarian would have to redo distribution o We all started equally and we decided freely to give him money and we did get to see him play Restoring the pattern necessitates too much interference Needs too much government interference to bring about change and would interfere with free market and people s rights Rawls Not supposed to work for every individual only basic structure o Leaves us with only historical non patterned principles Nozick s theory or one like it is the only plausible contender Libertarian Justice Some Objections o Objection 1 Because we cannot identify all of the historical injustices and how to rectify them a libertarian theory is useless Elgian marbles owned by British museum But probably unjust because Lord Elgian who donated them to museum may have acquired them unjustly o Responses Utilitarians have the same problem Moral statute of limitations Nozick we have a limitless past Facts determine what is just we do our best to make such judgments o Objection 2 o Objection 3 People are not responsible for their own talents and abilities and so do not necessarily deserve What constitutes just acquisition of natural resources Suppose we all do own ourselves Why wouldn t this imply that we have an equal claim to natural resources you o We all share the world so why does one get to acquire some resource and mix his labor with it o My acquiring of a resource might not leave anything good for And hence we must compensate others for our use of natural resources o Why should we have to buy a resource from someone o Objection 4 Nozick wrongly assumes that consent suffices for just transfer Monopolies discriminatory practices Buying goods giving gifts