Management Nozicks Entitlement Theory of Justice Discussion – Description
In this topic, we’ll be discussing the readings from Week 4. Please remember that for every week, you must post at least once, and respond to at least two other student responses.
READINGS
https://iep.utm.edu/nozick/
Sara Griffith
I thought Robert Nozick’s “Theory of Entitlement” was an interesting take on the system of justice in our society. Nozick begins with the elaborating on the concept of self-ownership. He thought individuals should have the right to own themselves and their abilities. I think personal accountability, which goes hand in hand with having a strong moral compass, is a key part of maintaining justice. His writing also made me realize that not all justice is the same. There needs to be an equal distribution of justice among individuals for it to work efficiently. According to Nozick, individuals are “entitled to the fruits of their labor and their natural talents”. From this starting point, he develops a theory of just acquisition, just transfer, and just rectification. As justice is a complex concept to be maintained, I thought braking it down to three categories is a good way to go about it.
Just acquisition means that if someone applies their labor to an unclaimed resource, they have a right to the resulting property. This makes sense rationally, although, I can think of multiple instances in history when this has not been the case. Specifically, an example that immediately came to mind of just acquisition not being achieved was Native Americans. They exerted their labor and “fruits of natural talents” into their property (land), which was then violently stolen from them. The next principle of justice according to Nozick is just transfer. Nozick maintains that properties can be justly transferred from one person to another through voluntary exchanges as long as no force is involved. From this perspective, individuals can have the right to transfer their property to others as they see appropriate. Lastly, the last principle of justice is just rectification. This principle allows for the rectification of past injustices through compensation (often monetary), without violating the principles of just acquisition and just transfer.
I really liked how Nozick’s theory prioritizes individual rights and voluntary interactions, which all falls under the concept of self-accountability. The result of this is minimal involvement for the state in redistributing wealth or enforcing patterns of resource distribution. He believed that the government’s attempt to redistribute assets through taxation or other means infringes upon the rights of individuals, as it involves a third-party interference with their property. I agree that ownership of property and other taxes is an integral part of justice that is often looked over today. Also, there are also critics of Nozick that argue his theories place too much emphasis on historical entitlements, neglecting the broader social and economic structures that can impact individual opportunities.
Nozick’s beliefs contrast greatly to John Rawl’s and his followers. Rawls believed that the state should have whatever powers are necessary to ensure that those citizens who are least well-off are as well-off as they can be. There is some sense to this perspective but too much government involvement is considered communism, which throughout history has proven to be an ineffective way to govern individuals. I would have to agree more with Nozick’s beliefs as it puts more control into individuals rather than the state that governs them.
Reid Navarro
Robert Nozick’s theory of entitlement covers distributive justice, where the distribution of goods and resources is determined by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer. Nozick says, individuals have the right to acquire property without coercion or force, and the right to transfer their property through voluntary exchanges with others. The resulting distribution of goods and resources is therefore just because it reflects individual choices and actions based on these rights. However, Nozick’s theory has been criticized for its emphasis on individual liberty at the expense of social responsibility. People argue that his theory fails to address issues of inequality, exploitation, and structural barriers that limit opportunities for some individuals while benefiting others. One major problem with Nozick’s theory is that it assumes a level playing field where everyone starts off with equal opportunities. However, this assumption ignores historical injustices such as slavery, colonialism, and discrimination that have created enduring inequalities across generations. As Sandel points out, “It’s impossible to separate the story of how things got this way from the question of what we owe each other now.”
Moreover, Nozick’s focus on individual choice overlooks how our choices are constrained by social forces beyond our control. For example, someone born into poverty may not have access to the same educational or employment opportunities as someone born into wealth. This lack of opportunity can perpetuate cycles of disadvantage and limit people’s ability to exercise meaningful freedom.
In Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 03: “FREE TO CHOOSE,” Michael Sandel critiques Nozick’s theory by highlighting its flaws and challenging its assumptions. Sandel argues that the concept of entitlement cannot be divorced from broader questions about what constitutes a just society, since entitlements are shaped by social norms, institutions, and power relations. Sandel also criticizes Nozick’s view that taxation is inherently coercive because it takes away individuals’ property without their consent. Sandel argues that this overlooks the role of taxes in funding public goods and services such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare that benefit society as a whole. Moreover, taxes can be seen as a way of redistributing wealth from those who have benefited from social structures to those who have been disadvantaged by them. Nozick’s theory of entitlement is problematic because it fails to account for historical injustices and structural barriers that limit opportunities for some individuals while benefiting others. It also places too much emphasis on individual choice at the expense of social responsibility and ignores the role of taxes in promoting the common good. Nozick’s theory of entitlement may seem appealing on the surface, it ultimately falls short when examined more closely. Michael Sandel’s critique highlights many of these shortcomings and underscores the importance of considering broader questions about what constitutes a just society when thinking about distributive justice.
Kenny Mojo
The online reading provided this week was on the story of Robert Nozick. During his life, he graduated from Princeton and taught at Harvard, where he became renowned for his thoughts on political philosophy and the resurgence of libertarianism, a form of government that is small, only defending the law and national security. Nozick’s first work, Anarchy, State, and Utopia is considered to be one of the two great classics of 1900s analytical political philosophy. He discussed the notion of rights being critical to political theory and libertarianism, both of which had been neglected by academic thought, especially the idea of libertarianism. Nozick begins this discussion with the issue of self-ownership. He uses Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative to set a foundation for humans to act as their own rational agents. This translates to humans possessing self-ownership as they are rational agents and will have inherent dignity. Nozick then claims that because humans are all rational agents and have dignity slavery would be an immoral act as the slaveowner is stealing the person’s dignity. He then extrapolated this to suggest that taxation is a kind of slavery because it amounts to forced labor, thus creating an immoral society, with its citizens becoming its slaves. Nozick then states that a better form of government would be closer to a night watchman state, which means that the state only protects the citizens, using police and military from force, fraud, theft, and administrator court of law. but does nothing else. He then continues to state that this style of government cannot regulate food and drink intake, and smoking habits, cannot ban books or media, mandatory education, regulate the economy, and control wages. All of these protections from the government are deemed immoral in the words of Nozick. His next point in his work was to refute the claims of anarchists. Nozick argued that anarchy would give rise to a minimalist state and that the state would have a moral responsibility to come into existence. He writes that people in an anarchist society would eventually develop groups for protection and that those groups would become more powerful as they grew, leading to one large group dominating the rest and creating a state or a collection of groups allied together dominating the rest and creates again another state. Nozick then proceeds to argue the idea of distributive justice. Distributive justice he says is inherently misleading. The implication of distributive justice is that there is a central authority that distributes to individuals compensation for their victimhood via the transfer of wealth. These transactions give them a moral claim of the shares, therefore the distributed portion of distributed justice is a misnomer that blinds the reader from its true meaning. Nozick made significant contributions to philosophy and especially to political philosophy in his life. His work The Nature of Rationality developed a complex theory of rationality while he studied the meaning of life in The Examined Life. Although these works were not as well received as his first, they make a significant contribution to their respective field.
Blake Feit
This weeks readings covered topics of justice, private property, and self interest in society. Many of the perspectives I ready about had roots in self interest and how people respond to it based on their perceptions. In the reading from Robert Nozick’s “Theory of Entitlement”, he develops a bare bones theory on human mentality and the way in which personal property should be handled. He starts as identifying humans as rational agents with self awareness, free will, and possibility to create a life plan. Saying that people have dignity and cant be used or treated as a thing against their will as an object could be. Continuing that individuals are self owners meaning that people own all aspects of themselves as a person and their possessions. He builds on this as people have “rights to their lives, liberty, and fruits of their labor”. Negating forced labor even if the purposes of that labor is good as individuals own themselves and that forced labor would be a violation of property. Nozick takes this theory further by claiming that taxation is a morally illegitimate kind of forced labor. Saying that a certain amount of labor time that earns money will be forcibly taken through taxation meaning that there is involuntary labor. And this labor goes to all citizens in the form of social benefits funded through tax. This is where I start to disagree with Nozick as taxation is used as a method to fund important projects for all citizens in an society. I can attempt to understand his reasoning for this point as he comes from a place of privilege where he doesn’t need to rely on government programs. But taxes go to more than supporting low income individuals like public projects and community upkeep. It is clear that his beliefs are based in self interest as his main point is that individuals should have complete control and responsibility for their lives, actions, and finances.
This greatly contrasts another major view on ethical justice of Catholic social views which align with justice that coincides with Catholic intellectual traditions. Even though Catholic social views on this issue differ from Nozick’s, they both are similar in the fact that they are a response to self interest. But where Nozick’s argument is from the perspective of self interest on the material level, Catholic social views is from the perspective of self interest in individuals relationship with God. This perspective comes from an idea that individuals have obligations as creatures of God to care for one another. Ensuring that those who are less fortunate get proper help to make sure they are cared for. Furthering that free market on their own aren’t enough to ensure justice for individuals around the world. Because free markets can only go so far in ensuring justice as they have many faults if not held to a higher standard. Meaning that free markets need to have proper ethics in place in order for them to be just according to Catholic social views.
Overall, Id say that my view on this topic would be a combination of Nozick and Catholic social thoughts. I have a strong belief on self interest and control over ones personal property and personal rights. I think that its a very important aspect that people can make decisions on matters that only affect them without any interference as its their right. But at the same time, Nozick’s view on the topic is quite extreme with his view on taxation. Catholic social views on this matter that I identify with is the emphasis on ensuring less fortunate people have the support that they need as they are people too. And the use of ethics in a market is important to ensure justice in the market for all.
The post Management Nozicks Entitlement Theory of Justice Discussion first appeared on .
