Difference between revisions of "The Entitlement Theory of Justice"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
because somebody else owns that land. While I can walk down a city street, I cannot make use of the vast wealth surrounding me unless I bribe the owners withan adequate payment. Denying this is a pattern maintained at a cost of huge expense and interference is ridiculous. | because somebody else owns that land. While I can walk down a city street, I cannot make use of the vast wealth surrounding me unless I bribe the owners withan adequate payment. Denying this is a pattern maintained at a cost of huge expense and interference is ridiculous. | ||
| + | <pre> | ||
| + | Nozick's "Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is in itself | ||
| + | just" can fail because of many implied requirements. Perfection of the | ||
| + | original situation and the steps is required. Just initial situations are | ||
| + | required (an impracticality.) And a demonstration of perfect | ||
| + | justice-maintainance of the steps is required: a step may be just without | ||
| + | maintaining justice. (This is a big problem: he's making an inductive argument | ||
| + | withotu showing the critical step.) For example, if it is just to take a | ||
| + | seat on a bus | ||
| + | when there is no elderly person present, and it is just for an elderly | ||
| + | person to enter the bus after that, it is not just to remain in the seat | ||
| + | after the elderly person has entered. But worse, in real life we can't ever | ||
| + | have perfect justice of steps or starting situations. So the question is | ||
| + | whether the steps move us closer or further from justice, and where an | ||
| + | equilibrium will be reached (if one exists.) The Nozick statement has an | ||
| + | implied binary logic model which real life doesn't match. | ||
| + | In addition, this bus example is analogous to the Lockean Proviso. | ||
| + | "voluntary" is really a remainder of the set of actions. It is actions that | ||
| + | are not necessary, that are not coerced. But worse, it is not an all-or-none | ||
| + | category: it is fuzzy. The set of possible actions to choose from is not | ||
| + | voluntarily created in a general sense: it is created by society. When it is | ||
| + | restricted by society, and an individual is channelled to a small set of | ||
| + | choices, is his choice going to be voluntary? Your money or your life? | ||
| + | Are choices required by earlier "voluntary" choices still voluntary? | ||
| + | What about choices about coercion? | ||
| + | Can we profitably use a space model to analyze voluntary? | ||
| + | Possible axes: | ||
| + | choices from unlimited to strongly limited | ||
| + | reversable vs irreversable (or penalty for reversing.) | ||
| + | uncoerced to heavily coerced | ||
| + | necessary (breathing) versus unnecessary | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nozick's justice in transfer presumes that the transfer is entirely voluntary,ie. there are no unjust side effects. Levee building, conspicuous protective | ||
| + | services, etc. all divert hazard to others. The whole legal principle of | ||
| + | attractive nuisance is based on this.Nozick is attempting to create a pattern of perfection in justice, instead of | ||
| + | goods. This pattern too fails if voluntary transfers can create any injustice. | ||
| + | Then people will attempt to create the amount of injustice they want. After | ||
| + | all, justice too is a good. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nozick's justice in acquisition is the basis for an inductive demonstration of | ||
| + | the possibility of a just society. However, induction requires a true | ||
| + | initial state, something that Nozick blatantly omits. | ||
| + | There are some published objections of this sort. | ||
| + | www.american.edu/cas/philrel/pdf/upload/Lucibella.pdf | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nozick simulates mathematical induction (and uses the word induction), without m | ||
| + | eeting the requirements. Google induction "justice in transfer" | ||
| + | |||
| + | Justice in acquisition tends to ignore opportunity cost: there is not "as much a | ||
| + | nd as good" afterwards. Whenever price appears, there is not as much or as good | ||
| + | . | ||
| + | |||
| + | </pre> | ||
<!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them. Use these explicit workarounds. --> | <!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them. Use these explicit workarounds. --> | ||
<!-- normally, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}} | <!-- normally, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}} | ||
