StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Robert Nozicks work entitled How Liberty Upsets Patterns - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
This paper will analyze Nozick’s work, “How Liberty Upsets Patterns”, identifying his primary arguments and conceptions whose purpose is to prove that liberty does, indeed, upset patterns. …
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER95.2% of users find it useful
Robert Nozicks work entitled How Liberty Upsets Patterns
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Robert Nozicks work entitled How Liberty Upsets Patterns"

Robert Nozick’s work en d “How Liberty Upsets Patterns” Nozick’s writing offers a rebuttal on Rawl’s justice theory by eliciting the dialogue between liberalism and libertarianism. The justice theory in Nozick’s writing is sketched into distinctive steps that attempt to affirm the philosopher’s theory of distribution and justice in distribution. In the reading, Nozick uses few examples to offer support for his argument. Clearly, Nozick’s theory of distributive justice follows the non-patterned principle by choosing to steer away from patterned standards of justice such as utilitarianism and egalitarianism, which conform to patterns that follow the norm “to each according to…” (Sandel 2007, 360). This paper will analyze Nozick’s work, “How Liberty Upsets Patterns”, identifying his primary arguments and conceptions whose purpose is to prove that liberty does, indeed, upset patterns. Nozick begins his argument by poising that people who have contrary beliefs regarding distributive justice, particularly those who abide by notions of patterned distributive justice such as utilitarianism and egalitarianism, should not refute his distribution theory of justice, especially with regard to holdings. Nozick’s theory takes a non-patterned consideration into the element of justice in holdings. According to Nozick, the repeated application of justice in holdings typically results in entitlement of holdings. Nozick bases his argument squarely on the concept of non-patterned principle of distributive justice, which attempts to elucidate the fact that patterned conceptions regarding justice in distribution are typically unable to work well with notions of liberty. Nozick uses the now famous argument of Wilt Chamberlain to demonstrate the manner in which patterned principles that deal with just distribution are essentially irreconcilable with all notions of liberty. Nozick poises that Rawl’s difference principle fails to provide a real description of the society today (Sandel 2007, 359). The society runs on distribution patterns, which are defined by the desires of people who in it. Various distribution patterns are entirely just because they are based on the desires of the society. However, Nozick argues that, while an alternative distribution pattern in society does not typically conform to the favored patterns of people within the society, the alternative distribution pattern is still just. According to Nozick, the Wilt Chamberlain example essentially demonstrates that no standard patterned tenet of distributive justice can be well-suited with liberty. This is primarily because, in order to conserve the patterns provided for by patterned distribution where the society’s desires dictate distribution patterns, the state will need to interfere with the capacity of people to exchange freely their instinctual distributive justice on a constant basis. This is primarily because, as Nozick argues, all exchanges of distributive justice in patterned principles essentially require the constant violation of the patterns for which they were originally formulated. Nozick concludes that end-state, as well as a vast majority of patterned distributive justice principles provide for unfair ownership of people, their labor and actions. As a consequence, such principles provide for the shift from the notions of self ownership to those of limited property rights in the actions and beings of other people (Sandel 2007, 358). In essence, this means that, under patterned distributive justice systems, the example of Wilt Chamberlain shows that third parties will have a just claim on other people (Chamberlain) provided that the third parties transfer something valuable to the individual in question. Under patterned distributive patterns, third parties have legitimate shares in the individual since their shares cannot be changed. From the reading, several misunderstandings become clear; the greatest source of concern is the Wilt Chamberlain example because the existence of anarchy in a society only serves as a defense of capitalism. However, if anarchy defends capitalistic tendencies and capitalism as a whole, it is unclear why an argument for capitalism would be short of some of the most critical elements of capitalism such as financiers, capital markets and risk capital. It is unclear why Nozick chose to use the example of Wilt Chamberlain, a gifted basketball player rather than other conventional instances such as a visionary entrepreneur or a CEO. Nozick’s example effectively does away with the vital element of team owners or capitalist who are merely afforded a passing reference yet are vital to the existence of the market in which Chamberlain and customers operate (Sandel 2007, 359). Nozick appears to peter out nearly all acceptable elements of capitalism such as production means, collective bargaining, labor, owners and capital. On the other hand, Nozick’s argument seeks to maximize only one element of capitalism; the capacity to direct money and resources to people considered as uniquely and immensely talented. In Nozick’s example the concept of liberty is dissimilar to the system, which resourcefully pays off the talented individual (Sandel 2007, 360). Evidently, this argument is a mixed up non-sequitur since Nozick’s writing does not primarily focus on defending the prospect of capitalism, but rather to buttress his inference that liberty essentially upsets standard patterns. In this sense, patterns refer to elaborate justice theories, which poise that certain distributions are essentially just and departures from these distribution patterns are unjust. Nozick seeks to demonstrate the unacceptability of continuous interference, which is necessitated by patterned libertarian notions of liberty. Nozick argues that it is this constant interference and not the justice inherent in the system, which continually awards massive amounts of money to those uniquely talented such as Wilt Chamberlain. The last key step of the argument is Nozick’s assertion that patterned forms of justice are upset when people have free will, even within the social and societal milieu. This means that patterned distributions can only be considered as just based on the manner in which things end up. However, in order for a distributive justice system to be just, it should be based on moral worth and intelligence within the society rather than talent alone. The basic assumption held by Nozick is that if the evaluation of justice within a distribution pattern in the society is pegged on how things wind up, there will be a need to interfere with the liberties of other individuals on a constant basis (Sandel 2007, 361). Taking into account the Wilt Chamberlain, in order for the distribution system to be just, it is imperative to deter other people from going to see Chamberlain or denying Chamberlain the opportunity to play basketball. However, both options violate the liberties held by all parties affected by the situation, thereby showing the need for constant interference so as to deter injustice. Works Cited Sandel, M. J. ed. Justice: A Reader. Boston: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Robert Nozicks work entitled How Liberty Upsets Patterns Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/history/1468385-robert-nozicks-work-entitled-how-liberty-upsets-patterns
(Robert Nozicks Work Entitled How Liberty Upsets Patterns Essay)
https://studentshare.org/history/1468385-robert-nozicks-work-entitled-how-liberty-upsets-patterns.
“Robert Nozicks Work Entitled How Liberty Upsets Patterns Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/history/1468385-robert-nozicks-work-entitled-how-liberty-upsets-patterns.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Robert Nozicks work entitled How Liberty Upsets Patterns

Rawls and Nozick's Theories of Justice

The basis of nozicks work is to distinguish between the historical principles of justice and the end-state principles.... Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others (this principle reflects a traditional liberal commitment to formal equality) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged; and (B) attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (this so-called 'difference principle) points towards a significant measure of social inequality According to the Rawls theory the material inequalities can only be justified when they are used to be of advantage to those who are least well-off....
7 Pages (1750 words) Essay

F Robert Nozick's How Liberty Upsets Patterns

Name Instructor Class 18 February 2013 how liberty upsets patterns, But for the Greater Good A stable distribution of justice easily turns into a messy affair, when liberty is added to it.... In “how liberty upsets patterns,” Robert Nozick describes how liberty, which stands for “free will” and autonomy, can disrupt an equal form of justice distribution system.... Distributive justice can have different patterns, depending on the preferred pattern of society....
3 Pages (750 words) Essay

On Justice and Liberty

This paper ''On Justice and liberty'' tells that Justice and liberty are two concepts that are important to one's life because they can affect if and how many individual rights are compromised for the protection of collective or social rights.... Two philosophers explore the meaning and implications of justice and liberty.... They also explore the impact of government equality policies on liberty and justice....  Rawls and Nozick have different conceptions of justice and liberty because of their divergences on deserts, the government's role in ensuring justice, and whether justice or liberty is more important than the other....
8 Pages (2000 words) Essay

Philosophical Thoughts on the Notion of Justice

nbsp;Today, society is preoccupied with notions of democracy, liberty, and justice, which one may tend to view as symbols of modernity.... To prove his case, Rawls starts off his line of reasoning with the mounting of a hypothetical case with which he attempts to show a possible scenario of how such a general agreement between people could theoretically be reached under equal conditions and with no variance in initial bargaining positions.... Hart, is widely known as the author of the almost revolutionary work "A Theory of Justice" (1971), in which he erased disciplinary lines and elaborated views which resurrected the academic interest to political philosophy....
8 Pages (2000 words) Essay

The Distribution of Primary Goods by Nozick and Rawls

The paper "The Distribution of Primary Goods by Nozick and Rawls" discusses that Rawls advocates the use of political and legal establishments in ensuring a more equitable distribution of assets by allowing equality of opportunity to the extent possible.... hellip; Forcing a redistribution of such assets and resources would not only produce an unjust result by coercing individuals who have gained their resources through gifts or their own skills to share it with others who have done nothing to gain resources, including gaining them through gifts....
10 Pages (2500 words) Essay

Theory of Justice: Anarchy, State and Utopia

In the paper “Theory of Justice: Anarchy, State and Utopia” the author argues that it is unjust to allow distribution of primary goods on the basis of natural assets.... He contends that the distribution of primary assets on the basis of natural assets may be inherently unjust.... hellip; The author contends that no one deserves his place in the distribution of natural endowments, any more than one deserves one's initial starting place in society....
6 Pages (1500 words) Essay

Liberalism and Theory of Justice vs Anarchy, State and Utopia

ven if it did, a version of natural liberty and not the difference principle would emerge as the preferred result.... Based upon this, Nozick offers the argument that if another asset Y arises out of X through a process that does not violate anyone else's rights or entitlements, then the person is also entitled to possession of asset Y.... Moreover, since historical entitlements arise out of distributions that are the result of local exchanges among individuals, Nozick contends that individuals are entitled to them and have a right to them, without necessarily having possessed some talent or having out in effort or performed some work to gain this asset, because such an acquisition has not necessarily been acquired illegally....
8 Pages (2000 words) Assignment

Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Nozick

What is unjust or just is how institutions deal with the facts.... It includes the process of how unheld things come to be held, the issues involved and things that may come up to be held in these processes, and the extent to which things get possesed.... The entitlement theory insists on distributive justice and includes principles that govern how someone can divest himself from a holding and pass it to an unheld state.... The principle of justice mainly states that a person who acquires a holding in accordance with this principle in acquisition then automatically becomes entitled to the holding....
5 Pages (1250 words) Book Report/Review
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us