Nozick Right And Wrong

Right and Wrong

When it comes to the matters of legality and morality there is not a place showing visibly greater division than Harvard. First John Rawls believes that there should be equity in distribution and ownership of goods and provision of services. In contradiction, Robert Nozick argues that a person should be allowed to accumulate as much wealth as he may desire without any boundaries or restrictions, extreme capitalism. From a moderate angle to both extremities, comes in Charles Fried. Fried believes that under no situation should a person commit a wrong in the knowledge that they are doing so, namely by lying. He argues that an individual has the right to not be harmed, or caused injury by another, in the opposite notion that a
He tries to encompass both ends of the way in which lying undermines agency: on beliefs that affect the truth and the human ability to communicate with others. Fried first defines the criteria a statement must meet in order for the statement to be considered a lie. First, there must be communication of a statement through a language that is known and recognized by others (Fried 57). Secondly, the person who perpetuates the statement must believe that whatever they are asserting is a false acclaim. This still encompasses the possibility that the statement might be true. Whether the statement made is true or false the critical aspect is that the perpetrator believes that the statement he or she is making is false. In accordance with Fried's book Right and Wrong; “A person lies when he asserts a proposition he believes to be false” (Fried 55). Lastly it must be intended that the statement, a lie, was put forth to be believed as truth by the other party (Fried 59). In Right and Wrong, Fried illustrates a Kantian account of why lying is wrong in conjunction with his own views on when lying is excusable or
However, when examining the propositions for when Fried believes “it is right to lie”, it is evident Carr’s scenario does not fit all the criteria (Fried 73). Criteria one and four are easily met; it is in Carr’s interest not to answer the survey, as it will most likely harm his candidacy, and he is unable to not respond to the survey, as it is part of the application. Criteria two can arguably be met, if it is believed the employer is committing a wrong by deciding from the survey not to hire Carr, then Carr knows the employer doesn’t have a right to the truth. The problem arises in the third proposition. The employer does not know that Carr knows the employer doesn’t have a right to the truth. In fact, as previously discussed, the employer most likely believes the opposite, that the company is entitled to the truth; otherwise the application would not contain the psychological exam. The third proposition prevents Carr from falling under the same justified or excused category as the receiver to the murderer at the door. Thus, according to Fried, it is wrong for Carr to lie because the employer should not be prevented from obtaining the truth (Fried