Justice has been a long-debated topic. Societies from the beginning of time have been wrought with inequalities and differences. While some of these disparities appear blatantly discriminatory, others are less clear-cut. Philosophers, economists, and people alike have worked to establish systems and regimes with goals of equality and peace. Two noted philosophers who made compelling arguments were John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Rawls was of the opinion that although inequality in society was inevitable, it was only justified if it benefited those worst off in society. Nozick, in contrast, believed that inequalities were justified provided the way in which they occurred had nothing to do with impeding on anyone else’s personal rights. Rawls’…show more content… Chamberlain is a basketball player that everyone wants to see play. In the hypothetical example, basketball fans voluntarily pay a premium directly to Chamberlain to see him play. The combination of everyone’s low individual fees results in an excessively wealthy Chamberlain, and a large distribution gap between him and those who paid to see him play (Nozick). This example highlights the differences between Rawls and Nozick’s theories. Rawls feels that the distribution of wealth is unjustified, even though each person – not just willingly – but happily gave money to see Wilt Chamberlain play basketball, as they saw utility in it. For this very reason, Nozick will deem this distribution and allocation justifiable (Fraser). If economic inequalities arise from voluntary and consensual exchange, they cannot be unjust, as we are not sacrificing anyone’s liberties. Similarly, monetary exchanges are not zero-sum, and those who chose to spend their money to see Chamberlain play did so knowingly and by choice, because they felt the pleasure they would gain from seeing Wilt Chamberlain play justified the…show more content… Rawls believes we are justified in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, while Nozick feels this akin to theft. He believes that aiding people should be more synonymous with compensation. I am more of Nozick’s opinion. I believe that compensation should be given to those denied certain privileges due to certain reasons and circumstances (unjust initial acquisition or transfer, and unequal opportunity), but I do not think simple redistribution is justified. Following that, I also believe that those better-off have a moral obligation to donate to those worse-off. I deem it not only morally impermissible, but also practically inconceivable for those who can assist to choose not to. However, that being said, the way an individual chooses to contribute is their own right, and their money should go to a cause that they believe in. To simply take an individual’s money and to give it to someone who does not have money – whether that is due to inability, disability, or idleness – is unjustified, and undeniably impedes on that persons rights, as demonstrated by
