Rawls And Nozick

In a broad sense, both Rawls and Nozick agree that the legitimacy of a just society is highly dependent on the emphasis of liberty for its citizens. For Rawls, it is the first principal of justice, and though he presupposes equal liberty as a basic right for each person, he makes a point to prioritize its importance. Rawls outlines some basic liberties, including political liberties, equal treatment under the law, and the freedom to hold personal property (Rawls, 677). Nozick agrees with this emphasis on liberty, adhering to its presence as fundamentally important in a just society. He takes Rawls’ inclusion of personal property even further, making it the centerpiece of his argument by demonstrating its primary standing in a just society
However, these thinkers have different ideas of the underlying premise that should form the notion of a just society, with varying interpretations of what is fair to the people. In the big picture, these differences in ideals can be appropriated into the areas of wealth distribution, and the question of what an equitable society does for its citizens. For Rawls, the conception of a society stems from a system of cooperation between people who recognize the mutual advantage that comes from shared communal effort (Rawls, 674). He believes this notion of equality is an important part of maintaining the social contract ideology. If people were behind a “veil of ignorance”, not knowing their personal status before picking a society to live in, what decision would they make? With this argument, Rawls explains that a society formed without a concept of your own original standing will uphold the fairness of a community based on mutual agreements of the people. The veil of ignorance eliminates the possibility of voting in self-interest, and since each individual could be any ambiguous member of the group, they vote in the
For Rawls, an injustice is any inequality that is not to the benefit of all people (Rawls 678). He rejects the idea that social inequalities are permissible if they result in an overall gain for the aggregate, going back to his veil of ignorance theory (Rawls, 676). To ensure that these inequalities do not prevail, a distributive wealth policy that gives more attention to those born in unfavorable socioeconomic positions should be in place. Rawls’ “difference principle” sustains that inequalities must be made to yield the greatest benefit for the least advantaged. This emphasis on the underprivileged naturally follows the idea of equality of opportunity. Rawls believes that it is important for institutions to be structured to rightfully deal with the existence of inevitable inequalities. This is not to say that everyone will end up with the same amount of wealth; Rawls is not aiming for equality of outcome. Rather, he is making sure that no one is originally given an unfair advantage, based on factors beyond human control (Rawls,