Critically evaluate Nozick's response to Rawls's theory of justice Essay

Critically evaluate Nozicks reaction to Rawlss possible action of justice - Essay ExampleThus, the entitlement theory of justice, which is comprised in Nozicks response to Rawls theory of justice, reveals the clash between libertarianism and social welfare liberalism on the topic of justice. Although both Nozick and Rawls belonged to the social contract tradition in political philosophy, Nozicks entitlement theory of justice should be realised primarily as an opposition to Rawls theory of distributive justice and it everyone in the society is entitled to engage in diffusion of quality. As Suri Ratnapala maintains, Rawls case for distributive justice in its simplest form is that a system of social cooperation makes everyone better off than a system of non-cooperation in which all(prenominal) person fends for themselves by their own effort. Principles of justice are required to distribute the surplus that results from social cooperation. (Ratnapala 2009, P. 346). Therefore, Rawls t heory of justice is mainly based on the alleged(a) social contract among the self-interested members in a state of ignorance regarding their future, and they take part in a game of risk minimisation. The libertarian response to Rawls theory of justice as offered by the American political philosopher Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia should be realised as belonging to the social contract tradition in political philosophy. ... In a reflective exploration of Nozicks response to Rawlss theory of justice, it becomes lucid that the contrasting books of John Rawls A Theory of Justice and Robert Nozicks Anarchy, State, and Utopia own dominated the debate in analytical political philosophy for the last three decades. In his 1971 book, Rawls presented the case for a form of liberal egalitarianism which was challenged by Nozicks arguments in favour of libertarianism, including the free market, absolute property rights, and the minimal state, presented in his book in 1974. Ever since the publishing of these contrasting books, a vast quantity of critical literature has been written on their political philosophy and Nozick has gained the approbation of the contemporary political philosophers as his arguments are strikingly pen up to the political spirit of the current age. Nozicks project is to defend the libertarian minimal state akin to the night-watchman state of classical liberalism which exists purely to safeguard the personal and property rights of individuals. The enterprise falls into three stage. (Wolff 1991, P. 4). First of all, Nozick makes the argument, against the Anarchist, that a state as broad as a minimal state can be justified. Secondly, he makes his arguments against the defender of the extensive state by claiming that the minimal state is the most extensive form of legitimate state. Thirdly, he maintains that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right, and there is no cause of regret. (Wolff 1991, P. 4). Therefore, in contrad iction of Rawls case for a form of liberal egalitarianism, Nozicks makes his pertinent arguments on the facial expression of libertarianism which consists of the