Does Justice Exist?

The everlasting search for social justice in humanity brings more

questions than solutions. Even up to this point in time, the society we live in
have inequality in rights and wealth among different race, women and men,
and rich and poor. As these inequalities in society become apparent, it asks
the question: how should social institutions treat everyone equally and fairly?
Two intelligent thinkers, John Rawls and Robert Nozick, discuss the ideal
distributive justice of society, which these two offer solution that contrast to
one another. I will provide analysis of Rawls and Nozicks idea of just
distribution system, and argue against Nozicks ideas using Wilt Chamberlain
example.
In John Rawlss Theory of Justice, to get a sense of the justice as
fairness, Rawls begins by describing the role of justice in society to form the
basic structure of a just society. Rawls believe that society is just under the
principle of justice that governs the distribution of benefits and burdens in
society to avoid unequal distribution of benefits. First, Rawls provides his
fixed idea of society, which he describes it as an organization by people
whom recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and who for the most
part must act accordance with them. Societies exist to improve the lives of
those living in it, as Rawls point out that there is identity of interest where
people know they are better off working together in society than being left
alone. Along with the identity of interest, there is conflict of interest,
which Rawls explains that each person in society desire greater share of the

benefit produced from collective work. Due to the conflict of interest, Rawls
proposes the principle of justice that sets appropriate distribution of benefits,
like money or welfare, and burdens, like responsibility in society or tax. In
addition to the distributive role, Rawls states that the principle of justice
must consider fundamental social problems that would help coordination,
efficiency, and stability in society.
Rawls primarily focuses on the social justice as he describes the
subject of justice to be the basic structure of society. Rawls believes that
from the very moment people are born, they are determined for certain life
compared to others, which Rawls condemns as the very deep root of
inequalities set by the social institutions. Social institutions are a form of
social organization that people in society is part of, such as government,
education departments, commercial enterprise, and family structure. An
example of this inequality is apparent in university admission as a student
who goes to the same university, as the parent would have a higher chance
in getting in then other students. In order to distribute the opportunities and
social positions equally, Rawls proposes a guiding idea to make principle of
justice of basic structure the object of original agreement using the idea of
original position. When one is in original position, the person is at a
position or behind the veil of ignorance, where it knows it will be a rational
person, but does not know what class, gender, race, and ability it will have.
Behind this veil, the person can agree to the principle of justice since it
distributes every benefits and burdens equally. At this point, people can

agree to basic terms to equalize benefits, burdens, and anything that does
not advantage one over the other. Rawls calls this the justice as fairness
because all rational people will agree to terms in the original position.
Rawls is critical of Utilitarianism because distribution over greater good for
the majority will disrupt the balance of distributions. Instead, Rawls sets two
principles in which one is called equality of rights, which requires equality
in assignment of basic rights and duties. The other is called difference
principle, in which allows social or economic inequality only if the result is
compensating benefit for everyone. Rawls idea of justice requires social
cooperation that everyone is willing to follow, which in all creates fair society
for all.
The biggest critic to John Rawlss idea of distributive justice is Robert
Nozick who wrote the Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Nozicks stance on social
justice resembles American society where citizens have their rights
protected. Nozick prefers to have peoples rights valued and protected
because by doing this, the benefits and burdens people acquire in society
become voluntary. To begin, Nozick believes that the minimal state is the
most extensive as it can be justified, which can also mean that government
is best when governs least. Nozicks idea of minimal state is where
governments only role is to protect the people from fraud, harm, and
external threat. Nozick argues that any state that is extensive than the
minimal state violates human rights, because then the government is taking
something away from the person. Nozick disagrees with Rawlss distributive

system because the central force takes a persons procession away based on
how much they have it compared to others. He also argues that the term
distribution is misleading because distributions come along interaction
between people. For example, benefits come from individuals free choice to
buy something or free choice of working to earn benefits. Compared to
Rawls, Nozick does not value equality for all but rather believe that basic
rights for all makes a just society.
Robert Nozick proposes the idea of justice in holding, which holding
means any value or good that a person hold, to justify the system of
distribution and value human rights. The first of the three principle describes
the appropriation of acquiring the holdings, describing whether the process
of acquiring one good is just, for example, if any good was acquire by the
means of purchase or reward other than theft, fraud, or force then the
holding had been acquired justly. Second, the principle allows voluntary
transfer of holding just, for example, if one person gives out free goods
because it chooses to then it is justly held for the recipient, otherwise, if the
transfer of good required fraud or force then it is unjust. Nozick understands
that not every holding is acquired by the means of the first two principle, so
in the third principle, Nozick states that for injustices in holding, it is best to
go back and fix the problem of acquiring the holdings. For example, slavery
is violation of human rights, and to fix this problem we have to analyze
where the injustice in holding occurred and find the right solutions.

Nozick classifies his principle of justice as historical and non-patterned.

The principle of justice is historical because distribution is just when it follows
the principle of justice in acquisition and transfer, the only way to find it just
is to see how everyone got their stuff. Nozick claims his principle is nonpatterned as distribution of good is solely based on freedom of choice, unlike
Rawlss distributive justice, the distribution is patterned according to needs,
merit, I.Q., etc. For example, if basketball fans were asked to pay extra .25
cents to watch Wilt Chamberlain play and agreed to pay to watch Wilt, then
the distribution system under Rawls becomes unjust. To take away the extra
money earned from Wilt and distribute to elsewhere would violate Wilts
rights in that holding. Nozicks just form of distribution is centered on the
liberty in human rights as he believes distribution is voluntary just like how
people voluntarily agree to pay for the extra .25 cents to watch Wilt play.
In analyzing both the ideas of Rawls and Nozick, I have to disagree with
Nozicks example of voluntary distribution in Wilt Chamberlain example. First,
how is it just when Wilt is taking advantage of his talent to increase profit?
Basketball is not a one-man-sport, he has teammates that helps him achieve
some levels of success; therefore, there is some inequality among players.
Wilts ability to demand extra pay for his talents is my critical argument
against Nozick, because even thought people have their rights protected,
there is certain groups who can exercise greater rights than others. For
example, a person living under poverty will have to live harder and stricter
life compared to a person living rich. Under Rawlss original position, people

can distinguish the inequalities and voluntarily agree to abide by fair rule for
all, creating a just system of distribution.
In analyzing John Rawls and Robert Nozicks stance on distribution
system in society, the two differ in their concept of justice, as Rawls believe
equality matters most while Nozick believes liberty must be preserved. I
agree with Rawls view on distributive justice for equality because I believe
when it is in the state of absolute equality, their can not be human rights
that are violated because people have voluntarily chosen to abide by the fair
law. Such theories are only possible for beings without reason; therefore, the
search for complete justice is only imaginary.