HISTORY AND PATTERN

In: Social philosophy & policy, Band 22, Heft 1, S. 148-177

Abstract

This essay compares Rawls's and Nozick's theories of justice.
Nozick thinks patterned principles of justice are false, and offers a
historical alternative. Along the way, Nozick accepts Rawls's claim
that the natural distribution of talent is morally arbitrary, but denies
that there is any short step from this premise to any conclusion that the
natural distribution is unjust. Nozick also agrees with Rawls on the core
idea of natural rights liberalism: namely, that we are separate persons.
However, Rawls and Nozick interpret that idea in different ways-momentously
different ways. The tension between their interpretations is among the
forces shaping political philosophy to this day.