The following paper analyzes an evergreen debate over the differences between Libertarianism and Social Liberalism. Two different persons devised both theories; Robert Nozick presents the idea of libertarianism and highlights the concepts of state, anarchy, and utopia. On the other hand, Rawls developed the political philosophy of justice. The following are presented with their ideas, with a brief evaluation of the implications and positive or negative aspects of theories.
Structures Of Political Philosophies
John Rawls, through his theory of justice, emphasizes two underlying principles which can be comprehended in the form of equations.
- Liberty principle equals fundamental liberties of people: this rule implies the maximization of freedom of conscience, speech, voting power and religious beliefs.
- Difference principle equals least advantaged: differences are only accepted when such disparities are implemented to cater for the needs of the least advantaged populace of the community.
Throughout the social contract tradition, Rawls attempts to make a point regarding equilibrium, which meets a similar attribute of the civil system and can be defined as “justice as fairness.” For this purpose, he develops an argument about how people in their original or natural state design legislative laws from behind a veil of ignorance. Rawls posits the rationale of the veil of ignorance that people, without acknowledging their status in the community, establish economic and social conditions. They sheltered the poor and fed the hungry because they had the prospect of becoming one of them. (Wilkerson, 2011)
On the other hand, Robert Nozick’s famous “Anarchy, state, and utopia” perspective refutes the thesis of Rawls and asserts that only a minimal state can cater for the unique needs of protection and enforcement of people in a morally and ethically right way. According to Nozick, the underlying question of political philosophy is hidden within “whether there should be a state at all” instead of how governmental authority should be managed. He supports the existence of government only in a particular situation where it offers security and protection to a state of nature regarding freedom, properties, and lives.
Evidence Of Political Philosophies In Modern Society
No philosophy can be implemented in a society intact, but a fragment of different and variant theories are evident even in modern society. Rawls’ veil of ignorance does exist in society and makes its appearance as a fear of drafting wills and undertaking power as a healthcare attorney, including insurance policies and other legal and estate documentation, which remind people about their vague lives. (Lloyd, 2017) The rule of the veil of ignorance also implies voting out politicians who utilize rhetorical devices which are entirely contradictory to the framework of fairness. Similarly, Robert’s Nozick philosophy is incorporated into modern society through the notion of unfair distribution of wealth; riches and getting richer and poorer are going nowhere, and this entire phenomenon is legitimate because no one can take any substantial step to reform this fact. (Singer, 1975)
Evidently, John Rawls is a renowned philosopher and has an outstanding status in among esteemed theorists. He affirms that every individual is supposed to observe their state as that of ignorance. The comprehension regarding the veil of ignorance provokes them to explore the mechanism of life in a better manner. Through his political philosophy, he endeavours to equip everyone to unearth their fundamental societal principles. Rawls’s theory of libertarianism helps people start from scratch. In turn, this commencement from the very beginning will assist in creating fair and significant principles that will benefit society and every individual to a great extent.
Rawls’s philosophy elaborates on the aspects of equality and maintaining the quality of disparity. On the contrary, Nozick believes that poverty is inevitable and, therefore, should not be considered a blunder because it comes to those who deserve it. Nozick stresses that scarcity and joblessness should be justified consequences of succession and inheritance; meanwhile, the other possibility may be hard work and unmatched talent. He also posits that unsuccessful standards of wealth distributions are in benefit of wealthy people and allows them absolute freedom to opt their lifestyle, contrarily poor people are deservedly deprived of this luxury. In light of analyses, it could be said that John Rawls’s theory is better than Robert Nozick’s because it has the potential to incorporate betterment within the tapestry of society and political system.
Work Cited
Singer, Peter. “The Right to Be Rich or Poor.” The New York Review of Books, 1975,
www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/03/06/the-right-to-be-rich-or-poor/.
Lloyd, Harold. “Beyond Rawls’ Fiction: The Veil of Ignorance Is Real.” The Huffington Post,
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 7 Dec. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-lloyd/beyond-
Rawls-fiction-the_b_9365888.html.
Wilkerson, John. Rawls and Nozick on Fairness by John Wilkerson. 2011.
http://faculty.washington.edu/jwilker/353/RawlsNozick.pdf
