Welfare, poverty and income distribution
Cirous Omidvar
Abstract
Given the importance of Rawls and Nozick as two prominent philosophers from left and right wing of liberalism, in this paper a comparative root-seeking evaluation about their distributive justice theories is presented. By using the idea of explanation of expectations from a distributive justice theory ...
Read More
Given the importance of Rawls and Nozick as two prominent philosophers from left and right wing of liberalism, in this paper a comparative root-seeking evaluation about their distributive justice theories is presented. By using the idea of explanation of expectations from a distributive justice theory based on a problem-oriented approach, through a step by step root-seeking process, philosophical foundations of distributive justice theories of these two philosophers were identified. Then on the basis of internal and external consistency criteria, these foundations and theories were evaluated. The results of study are as follows: while Rawls founded his theory and particularly difference principle on the Kantian foundations which was the target of Nozick’ criticism; Nozick Which besides Kant, was under influence of Locke, founded his theory on the existence of a kind of natural law. Also while Kant and Locke, each in some way, harmonized their own value foundations with divine anthropological and epistemological foundations, Rawls harmonized it with this anthropological foundation that there exists a common sense of justice in humans, without mentioning the material or divine source of this moral sense. In contrast, Nozick harmonized value foundation of his theory with a kind of natural law; a godlike natural law that by determining the initial distribution of natural endowments, was determinant factor of entitlement of each individual; a distribution that Rawls even didn’t permit the use of just or unjust adjective about it.
