Essay on Contemporary Philosophers and Socio-Economic Justice: Rawls & Nozick

The contemporary philosophers have adamantly utilized the Kantian theory of metaphysics like John Rawls and Robert Nozick the critically evaluate the fundamental essence of socio-economic justice. Despite both philosophers agreeing on the importance of justice as a significant element in contemporary society and the center of the culture, thy greatly disagree in the processes and the basic principles of attaining socio-economic justice. For instance, while John Rawl believes justice entails equity and equality in the distribution of economic resources in the society irrespective of economic class differences, Robert Nozick encourages inequality as a principle strategy of attaining socio-economic justice. Therefore, the investigation focuses on critical evaluation and assessment on both John Rawl's and Robert Nozick's position on socio-economic justice, multidimensional pros and cons, and extreme stance.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In the Kantian conception of equality and distributive justice John Rawls alludes that a well-ordered society is coordinated by a conception of justice that is accepted by the public. As the contemporary society comprises of individuals with diverse differences, the concept of justice must be acceptable by all individuals as it transpires to embrace and promote individuals' interests irrespective of their uniqueness in beliefs, customs, religion or socio-economic status. A well-coordinated society strives to seek collective approval from all the members within the society. Moreover, Rawl adds that a well-ordered society encompasses an environment where the public and all individuals consider and acknowledge themselves as free and equal. According to Rawl, socio-economic justice can only be achieved when people feel equal in society while the political elites and society's authority promotes equality among all individuals without discrimination, marginalization, and prejudice. As he preludes Kantian concept of equality, John Rawl propels that the public had fundamental high orders interests that are often unrestricted and unlimited which authorities should strive to achieve rather than promoting distinction in the society's ability to achieve socio-economic progress. He believes in justice as promoting fundamental fairness in all social, cultural, economic and political system which eliminate and eradicate chances of prejudice irrespective of the society's condition.

Further, Rawl ascertains that it is the individuals in the legal system that often define what the society considers human right and at what level such pre-contained rights should be distributed. Despite basing his argument of justice on institutional principles, Rawl substantially makes fundamental sense as the contemporary society is often ruled by the guidelines and jurisdictions established by the legal and political system which strive to achieve fairness and equality among all individuals within the society. While a just society strives to achieve fairness and equality, it consequently distributes both everyday benefits and burdens. Through propelling liberty principle and difference principle, John Rawl believes that everybody should access the basics of liberty and promote fair opportunities for every citizen while the socio-economic differences should benefit the greater multitude of the disadvantaged populace. Hence, affirming that justice is the most important foundation of political values, it must promote a well-ordered society that propels initiates a political constitution that controls and regulates freedom, property, markets, and family. Rawl's theory of justice is important because it ensures sanity and content progression on the society, for instance, the taxation system enables the government to ensure equal redistribution of resources to equally benefit all citizens especially the disadvantaged populace.

Nevertheless, despite promoting human equality and developing a platform where the social, economic, political and legal system strives to uplift individuals in law class by ensuring equal distribution of resources that primarily benefits the disadvantaged, Rawl's theory of Justice has been constructively contradicted by Robert Nozick who subscribes of an extreme view of socio-economic justice. Nozick's theory of justice ascertains that all distribution is just as long as all the transacting partners achieve their objectives irrespective of the sacrifices and compromisation involved in the transactions. Unlike Rawl's theory of justice that advocated for fair distribution and redistribution of socio-economic resources primarily through governmental taxation, which ensures equality, need, desert depending entirely on the distribution patterns at that moment, Nozick disagrees that true justice is about respecting others natural rights to acquire properties, and to willingly transfer such properties at their discretion irrespective of the circumstances. Whether distribution is just or unjust, it entirely depends on people's right to self-ownership. Nozick harshly criticizes the contemporary social, legal, political and tax system disagreeing that despite the society's need to promote equality, individuals are "ends-in-themselves" and should not be forced to agree with a despotic regime with the intent of promoting greater good at the expense of their self-interest. For instance, he expressed his resentment on the taxation system which supposedly takes property from some individuals to redistribute them benefit all people equally as it violated people's right which the system promises to protect. Robert Nozick's entitlement theory depicts an advantage that promotes voluntary transaction among partners as it allows everyone to attain a property that they like, but it discourages the promotion of equality as it may result in the unequal distribution of wealth enabling those with power to suppress the weak, the poor and the disadvantaged.

Despite both Nozick and Rawl establishing the importance of socio-economic justice, Rawl's position is significantly relevant and agreeable. I agree with Rawl that most property that people own is as a result of their socio-economic ability and position, hence promoting inequality before setting economic principles that guides the process of acquiring property will be substantially unjust as people do not have fundamental rights to the entire earnings from their talents but only the significant proportion directed by the principle of distributive justice. Developing a system that propels equality is essential to a contemporary society characterized by diverse inequalities. For instance, raising interest rates to reduce inflation in a country significantly makes more sense despite suppressing employees. As moral guidance for the political and social structure, Rawl's theory of justice ensures equal distribution of both burdens and benefits to ensure the stability of societies irrespective of adverse circumstances. Nevertheless, as long as inequality ensures that the conditions of the marginalized and the vulnerable groups in the society are improved, Difference principle must be applied as the modern society is adamantly full with disadvantaged individuals than those with socio-economic ability to uplift themselves.

Additionally, like John Rawl that advocates for a system that benefits the greater good, John Stuart Mill contends in his utilitarianism theory that a well-ordered society must ensure it maximizes personal liberty for all citizens where all systems whether legal, social or political works together to promote moral good that benefits the most significant number of people. Like Rawl's liberty and difference principles which encourages a system of a strategy of equality which uplift of benefits the greatest number of the disadvantaged in the society, Stuart Mill contends that a just action must always result in functional consequences too a great magnitude. Therefore, both John Stuart Mill and John Rawl distinctively justifies the contemporary legal, social and political systems.