Nozick was concerned that Rawls had placed the wrong fundamental notion at the center of his theory. Nozick writes: “Individuals have rights
Robert Nozick who wrote a book called Anarchy, State and Utopia in 1974. It has been said
Rawls nor Nozick wants to be in. If all of us give our quarters to Wilt Chamberlain and his companions. Instead of having a society of which we’re
the fundamental rights which Nozick as well as Rawls was concerned with preserving become difficult for people to exercise. The Wilt Chamberlain example illustrates a
But as American philosopher Robert Nozick wrote, "To almost everyone, it is perfectly clear and obvious what should be done.
One could find in philosophical terms Nozick.
after Theory of Justice was published Nozick published his retort, Anarchy, State and Utopia.
author, Robert Nozic, who said, wisdom is an understanding of what is important. And there's a lot of stuff that follows behind that very simple
whatever distribution results, says Nozick, is a just one.
Like Rawls, Nozick is challenging the utilitarian picture. Like Rawls, Nozick thinks the goods
By contrast, on Nozick’s this provision would be possible only as the result of illegitimate
Let’s return to our four opening questions and ask what Rawls and Nozick would say about
the second question who says so, what makes the State legitimate and John Rawls and Robert Nozick are in a conversation directly with one another about the question who gets what.
of one person can’t be traded off the goods of the community, but unlike Rawls Nozick
rather the notion of liberty. Let’s look at what a society governed by Nozick’s principles might look like. Nozick famously articulates a view of the conditions
of responsibilities is as the result of a random process. Nozick by contrast would be happy with a volunteer army. Individuals have the right to contract into risk and the
choose to live in a society where such rights weren’t distributed equally. Nozick by contrast thinks that this, like everything else should be something which is your discretion
by 40% of the country. Does that mean our society is fundamentally unjust? John Rawls would give the answer yes. By contrast Robert Nozick would give
thereafter. Down the hall from him was a precocious young man in his late 20s who had recently started teaching at Harvard. That young man by the name of Robert Nozick took
thousands of times until Wilt Chamberlain comes to have not the $100 with which each of us started out, but thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. On Nozick’s
There is no easy answer to this question. There is a strong intuitive pull to the view that Nozick advocates—it is in some sense theft to take from Wilt Chamberlain what each
them. —with respect to the question of whether societies should guarantee universal healthcare Rawls would say yes and Nozick would say no. On Rawls’ picture health is a precondition
interference in people’s lives. With respect to the question of whether an inheritance tax is legitimate Rawls would say yes, Nozick no. Rawls says each of us
at the moment of birth are disadvantaged in ways which presumably is not to the benefit of the least well off. Nozick by contrast wonders where Rawls gets the idea that it’s
fact that most of the individuals who contract into risky situations are those for whom there are not so many options isn’t something that would bother Nozick, though of course
enroll as a graduate student at Harvard University where two of my teachers were the political philosopher John Rawls and a man who ended up being my dissertation director Robert Nozick.
What political philosophy and philosophy in general encourages you to do is to step outside the specificity of your own situation. Hobbes and Rawls and Nozick all recognized that each