Rawl s difference princip e an example of rail s difference principle Nozicks criticism of distributive justice an example of nozicks criticism of distributive justice nozicks 3 principles of justice in holdings an example of each of nozicks 3 princes of justice in holdings marxs criticism of individual rights an example of marxs criticism the point of feingbergs a ride on the bus including an explaintion of mills ham principle EVERYTHING I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT RAWL is concerned with social injustice He wants to establish social principles practices and institutions that are fair Believes that rights and liberties should not be determined by luck the original position is a thought experiment from where the social contract should be formed veil of ignorance requires that no one knows his place in society which eliminates the element of luck social contract will be fair to all citizens the Difference Principle requires that social and economic inequalities are to satisfy 2 conditions they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity People with similar talents and motivations have similar life chances Second condition is they are to be the greatest benefit to the least advantaged member of society differential treatment is justified in the case of the least advantaged e g The Americans with Disablities Act that promotes fairness and equality Rawls is a social Egalitarian A society can have unequal wealth and income as long s it benefits fellow citizens About Nozick He feels that we have a natural right to liberty and property according to Nozick taxation is equal to forced labor taking a peroration of earnings is like making a person work for someone else s purposes Person has the right to reap his own benefits Critisisms of Distributive Justice distributive justice requires some patterned distribution of wealth and resources Even if wealth and resources were equal our freedom to do what we want with our portion of the wealth and resources dismantles the pattern Therefore patterned distribution does not work because we have freedom Nozicks 3 principles of justice in holdings 1 Justice in Initial Holdings if the resources you used in making your money were legitimately yours in the first places then the holding is just 2 Justice in Transfer If you made your money through free exchanges in the market or from gifts voluntarily bestowed upon you by others then your holdings is just 3 The Rectification Principle if initial holdings are the result of past injustices then the in juste can be remedied through taxation or other means Taxation of the rich to support social programs for the poor are unjust because the state is acquiring money by force instead of through a voluntary transaction In a nutshell then Nozick s Entitlement Theory argues against social and government policies that redistribute wealth via taxation An inductive definition of a just holding 1 Someone acquiring a holding in accord with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to it 2 Someone acquiring a holding in accord with the principle of justice in transfer from someone entitled to it is entitled to it 3 Someone acquiring a holding in accord with the principle of justice in rectification is entitled to it 4 No one is entitled to a holding except by 1 3 I hold something justly if there is a chain of holdings back to an original acquisition from nature with no uncorrected injustices My shirt retailer wholesaler factory cloth maker cotton farmer cotton and other programs About Marx Marx wages a criticism of individual rights like paternalistic laws laws that tell you what to do like buckle up morals legislation and redistribution of wealth and resources Rights of man liberty is the right to do anything that does not harm others private property rights are private interests and choices individual rights are egoist because they focus on personal interests of individuals rather than on the interests of the community as a whole individuals rights separate man from other man and from society Rights of the citizen brings man into harmony with the community promotes equality before the law Mill s Harm Principle Liberty may be limited to prevent harm to others We are not free to engage in acts that harm others A person s own physical or moral good is not sufficient to curtail his liberty Feinberg s Ride on the Bus Purpose was to respond to Mill s Maximum liberty which promoted utility by protecting humanities permanent interests in security autonomy and social progress each person has complete autonomy over their own body and mind suggests that some forms of liberty are so gruesome that they should be forbidden or at least limited even though they don t intentionally harm others Categories of unpleasant exercises of personal liberty shame embarrassment shock to moral religion fear resentment anger etc