Philosophy paper, Rawls vs. Nozick- Cooperation or Individualism?

Politics from the 20th century to the modern day has impacted individuals more than it

ever has. Many parts of our lives are governed by the decisions made on Capitol Hill and other

political centers, from what we are taught and the quality of our eduction, to what the millage of

our cars can be. We often take these controls for granted and accept them, but we rarely ask

ourselves why we do so. Is it because we consider that the government has a right to legislate on

these matters? Then again with the current strong unpopularity of Congress, do we still recognize

their right? If the right to legislate isn’t based on the popularity or efficiency of politicians, then

what is it based on? This essay will analyze two opposing viewpoints that have become the

dominant force is justifying different types of rule. The first is the theory of “Justice as Fairness”

developed by John Rawls and the other is the theory of libertarianism as expressed by Robert

Nozick. They oppose each other on many issues, the root of which is the question of who has

power in an ideal government or utopia. For Rawls, it would be the society as a whole that would

hold power and create laws that would be to the benefit of all in the group. For Nozick however,

the group does not represent the individual and therefore cannot rightly govern people.

Therefore, individuals must be the rulers of themselves and be free from the constraints of

government. As a result of these views, Rawls considers equality, including economic and in

opportunities, and how it can be best insured so that the gap between rich and poor does not

become a giant chasm. Nozick however takes a completely different view on equality, that is

through equal individual human rights, and argues that the best way to govern people is to

respect those rights. Although their ideas are very much different, both of them make similar

assumptions, including that humans are inherently reasonable and altruistic, and that absolute

human rights are possible.

John Rawls’s philosophy of “Justice as Fairness” represents a society where people work

together to achieve commonly accepted goals in a society that are fair. The community is the

greatest contributor in this system since the conception of the “common good” is voiced through

it. Although there is room for individual motivation and initiative, this system Rawls argues,

would be fair and treat each individual equally. The reasons that the justice in this society would

be fair is because of two principles that Rawls references:

1. Each person has claim to equal basic rights and liberties; equal political liberties are to be guaranteed their fair value (they are not purely formal, but fair).2. Social and economic inequalities, in order to exist must satisfy two conditions:i. They must be attached to positions and offices with fair equality of opportunity.ii. They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

The first principal concerns the basic inalienable rights that Rawls believes people possess,

which he lists as basic religious and political liberties, freedom of movement, equality of

opportunity, right of personal property, and protections of law. Although he declares them to be

crucial, his main thesis lies with the second segment of the second principal, “that social

inequalities are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged”, which Rawls calls the

“difference principal”, and that is where the heart of his argument lies. It needs to be mentioned

that Rawls is not seeking equality in the sense of economical or social equality, but an equality of

opportunity. Each person must have a “fair equality of opportunity” to advance in society,

therefore ruling out any discrimination, as well as be reimbursed for economic inequalities,

similar to a current welfare and progressive tax system. The difference principal is the glue that

holds all of his other theories including that of the overlapping consensus, the political

conception of justice, the idea of society as a fair system of cooperation, and the original position

together, which combined forms a “well-regulated society”.

The principal of an overlapping consensus is the next step that Rawls uses to construct

the “well-regulated society”. At the beginning of “Political Liberalism”, he refers to the fact that

in a modern society, especially in a democratic one, there will be people who do not share the

same religious or philosophical beliefs as their compatriots. He then poses the question of how a

society can not only function, but actually cooperate together under these potentially disruptive

circumstances. The answer comes from the expectation that the majority of citizens of a country

are reasonable in that they accept the fact that there is no single correct philosophy, but that

different views will appeal to different people. Now this seems to be a jump to conclusions and

an assumption by Rawls; why should we assume that people will cooperate when there are many

examples through history of violence between groups with opposing viewpoints? However, he

backs up his position by his positive view on human nature, which he believes leads people to

want to propose and abide by mutually acceptable rules, and have the assurance that others will

do so. This type of inter-organizational social contract would be supported by reasonable people,

while any others will be excluded from the society. Therefore, with a society in which people

accept the existence of other doctrines, reasonable pluralism forms and cooperation can exist.

Another way that this cooperation is possible is through a theory that John Rawls labels,

“the original position”. The original position is very similar to that of a social contract in that

people come together to agree on the basic ideals of justice that will govern them. Having

representatives from each of the philosophical/religious groups (comprehensive doctrines), a

political conception of justice can be sought which all doctrines will agree to abide by. This is

where the comprehensive doctrines transform into an overlapping consensus. Each doctrine

reaches a consensus on justice (the political conception of justice) because they each agree to it

for specific reasons, and although they differ among the groups, they support the overall

decision. Group A can support law Z because of a certain religious belief, while group B can also

support law Z for a different reason such as a social belief. A decision is then reached that can be

supported by most members of society. Rawls then goes further by requiring the different

principle to be applied here, in the form of what he calls the “veil of ignorance”. Since the

original position has to benefit the least advantaged, Rawls adds that none of the figures in the

original position can know which doctrine they represent. Therefore no one would want to

unfairly distribute the pie in fear that they will get the smaller piece.

With the a political conception of justice in place, the last piece that would lead to

Rawls‘s well-regulated society would be the idea of a fair system of cooperation. The only way

that Rawls sees society functioning is through the cooperation of all citizens between each other.

Citizens consider themselves free because they conceive themselves and others as having the

ability to understand the political conception of justice, and therefore agree to not use others as

means, but as ends in themselves. Reciprocity would exist as the building block of a society that

desires the same goal of the general good. This reciprocity would also include mentally or

physically ill patients through public aid, but how they might repay the society still remains a

question.

However, this ideal government that Rawls has created has been often criticized by others

as being full of assumptions and impracticable abstractions. One of the major assumptions that

he makes is that people motivated by different interests will come together in a society because

they are reasonable. However, many countries have been torn apart as a result of ethnic and

religious tensions. Recent examples of this include Yugoslavia and Iraq which went through their

own civil wars. Many advocates of a stronger government would argue that humans are by

nature egotistical and unreasonable, and therefore shouldn’t be relied on to arrive at a decision by

themselves. On the other hand, Rawls would most likely argue that humans, by acting

egotistically are actually very much altruistic. In Yugoslavia and Iraq, the reason that they

descended into civil war was because the different comprehensive doctrines began to disagree on

the basic principles of justice in their respective nations, and therefore lost their overlapping

consensus. In other words, people desired power and did not consider it unjust to do so. This lead

to violent conflict which was only solved with compromise and cooperation. People realized that

a brutal civil war would not in the end be beneficial for them, and so acting in their self-interest,

they reestablished a political conception of justice and a society based on mutual respect and

cooperation. Only a country based on those principles can functions, and so in some ways

Rawls’s assumption stands its ground.

Two other criticisms of Rawls’s include that of the moral underpinnings of the difference

principal and the lack of emphasis on inalienable rights, both of which receive center stage in the

political philosophy of Nozick. Many advocates of limited government would question the

difference principal would be obligating individuals to make sacrifices for some abstract

“common good”. They argue that this stifles individual progress and opportunity, which therefore

would be a form of servitude. Rawls however would argue that in a free and democratic society

reasonable people agree that others have no choice where and in what economic/social condition

they are born into, and therefore should have an equal opportunity of advancement. The principal

secures that opportunity by aiding the least advantaged. He would also argue that the most

advantaged have an obligation to contribute to the society that’s helping them move up the latter.

Relating to Rawls’s limited view on alienable rights, HLA Hart, an influential political scientist,

argues that Rawls ignores his greatest liberty principal by saying that liberties can be given up if

“they violate some natural duty or some obligation”. Rawls has barely mentioned rights at all up

till this point, and seems to continue to ignore them by emphasizing the general good over these

rights. Although he mentions the right to hold private property as a fundamental liberty, he adds

that the right of movement serves as compensation for the least advantaged.

Robert Nozick’s political beliefs of libertarianism are a radical departure from the liberal

philosophy of Rawls. Instead of relaying on society and the group to govern, he places strong

power in the hands of individuals. His magnum opus, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”, starts with

the statement that “so strong and far-reaching are these rights [of humans] that they raise the

question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do.” His book was written as a

response to the “Theory of Justice”and it reformulated modern political philosophy and moved it

from a question of Utilitarianism vs. Liberalism, to one between him and John Rawls. Nozick

questions and rejects the idea of the difference principal. He maintains that redistribution is

illegitimate on the principal of the use of force in this kind of “negative transaction” (one in

which the costs are greater than the benefit). Here it has to be noted that Nozick is not seeking to

create a just distribution of wealth, as Rawls did. He understands that libertarianism will lead to

large inequalities in social and economic standings, but instead concentrates on maintaining

equal rights. The foundation of this idea of radical personal freedom comes from Kant’s

categorical imperative that we should “[a]ct so that you treat humanity, whether in your own

person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.” An abuse of individual

rights would be an ignorance of this rule and would not be permitted by free individuals.

Following this kind of thinking, Nozick places the enforcement of human rights not as the

constraints of the state, but its sole purpose. If a state does not enforce the rights of individuals, it

is immoral and illegitimate according to the standards of Nozick. Following these statements, he

branches off into different categories, including that of anarchy, the ultra-minimalist state, the

constraints on actions, the maintenance of justice, and many more, as he argues for the libertarian

solution in each case.

Nozick begins his argument by creating a the ideal government, one that does not abridge

the rights of any person, but at the same time protects them from absolute anarchy. The first step

is the creation of an ultra-minimalist state out of anarchy. Nozick does not believe that anarchy is

a possible solution for society, in fact he affirms that anarchy cannot be continuously maintained.

The reason is that even in a chaotic anarchy where everyone has every absolute right, the

weakest can still defeat the strongest through trickery, and therefore people naturally establish

measures to secure their rights. Although fences can be built and guards can be hired, the cost of

this would be heavy, and there would still be no guarantee of freedom. Therefore, people will

band together to spontaneously form what Nozick calls “mutual protection agencies”, or the

ultra-minimalist state. People who agree to be protected by this agency will have to pay for this

service and whenever someone in the agency is threatened, resources can be used to protect

them. This state however, Nozick argues, is not illegitimate because it does not have a monopoly

of force in an area, it can only protect people from acts that are seen as unjust. A framework

would then have to be established to regulate the decisions of the agency to prevent its abuse and

to decide whether it should enter into a certain conflict. In response, some sort of judicial system

must to used as a procedure to determine if rights were violated, and if they were what the

punishment should be. However, it must be maintained that only “protection against force, theft,

fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified” by this minimalist state.

One of the criticisms this minimalist state that is its treatment of so called independents,

people who refuse to join any of the agencies, and this is where the minimalist state arises. Do

independents have to protect their rights individually? Isn’t then this minimalist state actually

very powerful because it practically forces others to join and contribute to it? The answer is no,

simply because the mutual protection agency, although it is composed of certain paying

members, cannot infringe on the rights of others. By not allowing independents to enjoy their

inalienable right of self-protection and to be fairly, these agencies are overstepping their

boundaries and their power has to be curtailed. People not in the agency still have a right to be

tried fairly in all dealings with members of the agency. This second step, where the duties of the

state expand to include every person, is morally required for the state to exist, but lets the state

retain its legitimacy by not infringing on any inclinable rights.

This simple idea, of guaranteeing all people their inalienable rights of life and property

however opens up a whole new conflict, that of opposing rights. If the rights of individuals are

not constrained, how is society going to prevent situations like a mass panic when someone yells

fire in a crowded theater? Where will rights such as freedom of speech stop? Here Nozick revels

the principal of compensation, that those who are disadvantaged by being forbidden to undertake

certain actions that might harm others, must be compensated. He gives examples of this sort of

compensation when airlines who decide to send their planes above inhabited territory must pay

homeowners who are disadvantaged by paying for noise barriers and for the loss in the cost of

the property. Lawyers who would be arguing for the “public good” would represent all of the

people harmed by this infringement of private property. This type of bargaining, he argues, could

even be used to solve border and other disputes between individuals.

After the creation of this minimalist sate, Nozick presents his arguments against the

justification that a more expansive state is legitimate in order to acquire distributive justice. What

we would consider “just” distributions of wealth are usually based on a certain patterned

principal, such as I.Q. or marketable skills. However, there is no one skill that distribution can by

carefully patterned by and can justly say that one person deserves more because they have this

one skill. Also, there are discrepancies such as inheritance, prizes, and charity. Instead of trying

to find all the principles, Nozick turns to the free market and argues that only it can decide on a

just distribution of wealth. He summarizes this point as Hayek’s principle, "to each according to

how much he benefits others who have the resources for benefiting those who benefit them.” The

market transfers entitlements not arbitrarily, but for the reason that a person is willing to

exchange money for something that they considered equal or greater in value. The example that

Nozick gives is that of a baseball player named Wilt Chamberlain. If society is based on a certain

principle of distribution that is considered just, but Chamberlain decides to play baseball for a

small fee. If a million people pay to see him play, then has distribution come unjust? If it has

become unjust then the state would have to logically constantly interfere in the market,

something that is not possible. People agreed to sacrifice some of their property for this leisure

and therefore this is the only legitimate for of distribution. The state does not have a right to

become more extensive to ensure its own view on a just distribution.

Nozick has been criticized on both sides, by both liberals like Rawls who believe that a

larger state is justified, and individual anarchists like Noam Chomsky. Individual anarchists

affirm that states cannot arise without violating the rights of individuals, and therefore no state

can be justified. The principal of compensation they argue, gives the state the right to repress the

rights of others if it offers compensation, even if the independents refuse it. The state would get

gain initial power over individuals when it decides that their system of justice is not fair and

leads to a large amount of innocent people being pronounced guilty. The Individual Anarchist

then argues that the agency will prohibit prohibit another agency's clients from using self-help

enforcement of rights even if there is simply a risk of this enforcement being injurious to its

clients.

Rawls and Nozick present two fundamentally different views on government and society,

one based on cooperation to create a more just society and the other based on reasonable

individual interest and protection of rights. Both are arguable and legitimate political theories,

and both have their flaws. Rawls has been criticized by not focusing enough on human rights and

on the obligation that the most disadvantaged have to be benefited (commonly interpreted as a

justification for a welfare state). Nozick has been criticized as either creating anarchy by

weakening government, or even making it too strong. Both concepts have their examples in the

modern world, form the US which relatively follows Nozick’s model, to countries such as

Sweden and Israel which are more similar to Rawls’s principle. Political philosophy has large

repercussions for the world operates, but history will be the final judge of which world view

proves to be the most durable.

Bibliography of Major Works

Primary Sources

Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia UP, 1993. Print.

Rawls, John, and Erin Kelly. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2001. Print.

Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic, 1974. Print.

Young, Fredric C. "Nozick and the Individualist Anarchist." The Journal of Libertarian Studies

8.1 (1986): 43-49. Print.

Secondary Sources

Wenar, Leif. "John Rawls." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. Jan. 2012.

Richardson, Henry S. "John Rawls (1921-2002)." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. Jan. 2012.

Feser, Edward. "Robert Nozick (1938-2002)." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. Jan. 2012.