Social Justice and Wealth Redistribution

This assignment delves into the concepts of social justice and wealth redistribution, examining John Rawls' theory of justice and its implications for societal well-being. It analyzes his arguments for redistributing a portion of wealth to those in need, contrasting them with Robert Nozick's opposing views on individual rights and earned income. The assignment further explores the flaws in both arguments, ultimately arriving at a stance supporting Rawls' theory due to its emphasis on equitable distribution of resources and societal contributions.

Philosophy

As per the theory of philosophy, terms “desert” and “social desert” refer to concepts of
justice and distributive justice respectively. In accordance with the concept of social desert,
every individual in the society has total self-ownership which is the basis of rights that they
enjoy (Distributive Justice, 2013). However, it is not the basis of their distributive justice as it
does not involve only self-ownership but also, the public resources which each person in society
should share along with their social rights and economic interests. The theory of social justice
says that there should be equal distribution and allocation of basic social resources in the
economy.
In the words of John Rawls, main idea of “Theory of Justice” is all about division of
social benefits through individuals who are engaged in social cooperation. Principles of justice
are mainly chosen behind the veil of ignorance which gives surety that no one is getting
benefitted or disadvantaged by the contingency of social circumstances. However, the concept is
not saying that “justice” and “fairness” are same (Nussbaum & Martha, 2007). Rawls has also
given “Two Principles of Justice” in which the first is that each must have equal rights, that is,
every one’s basic liberty must be compatible with the freedom for others. The second principle
says that social and economic inequalities are needed to be arranged in such a manner that each
person in the society would get benefit of the same.
Rawls has made a claim that “there should be re-distribution of a portion of citizen’s
wealth to those who are the least advantaged”. According to Rawls, society must be considered
as a cooperative venture with purpose to gain mutual advantage as it will lead to flourish the
society through cooperation. However, cooperation always involves conflicts for avoiding of
which the most common and easy way is to distribute fruits of cooperation, that is, wealth by
which overall utility can be maximised. For Rawls, justice is the result of utilitarian calculation
as well as it is like a bargaining process where people used to walk away from any proposal
which they find to be unacceptable for them. Rawls want a system that promises the welfare and
good for all. As per Rawls, “least advantaged” does not say about an individual but to the
specific “economic class” in terms of wealth and income and not as per the demographics
(Piketty & Thomas, 2014). “Least advantaged” refers to the typical representatives of the lowest
income class.
Rawls says that people who are born wealthy prefer to have more rigid world than that of
poor manual workers. According to Rawls, if people born wealthy would want something that

will be similar with what manual workers desire for them, then poor people can be advantaged.
Rawls has given the principle of difference, that is, inequality in between wealthy and poor
economic class. He says that if this principle will get satisfied, then all classes will not be left
behind. Re-distribution of a portion of citizen’s wealth to those who are least advantaged will
lead to even make them share the health and wealth benefits (life expectancy, safe water, electric
power, etc.) (Schmidtz & David, 2013).
The argument has been made to redistribute a portion of citizen wealth to the people who
are least advantaged. But Nozick disagree with that because he says that no principle pattern can
be realized without the interference of the people. In this case, if the people will interfere then
the redistribution of wealth cannot be done. As there are no justified areas according to which the
redistribution can take place. The argument has been made that the individual should not think
who do distribute the wealth but rather they should think that how the rich class people are
behaving with the lower income groups. Further, the main argument is that no one has the right
to distribute the wealth as there is no mechanism made for it (Sen & Amartya, 2013). Besides
this, he said that even if the individual does not deserve certain things then also he does not have
right to distribute.
The counter argument is made on the rights which no one have regarding distribution of
income. As Rawls argues that everyone should be given equal but on contrary to that Nozick
says all individual do not get natural lottery they are at the position because of their hard work as
well as dedication. Further, the perception of Nozick is different from pawls because Nozick
presumes that the rewards which are gained from the hard work are solely of the person who has
earned it. On the contrary, Rawls believes that the rewards or the product which has been earned
is of the society as well as and it should be redistributed (Flanagan & et.al., 2014). Nozick argues
that everyone has the separate life and it is their choice to choose their work and earn money.
Further, no person should sacrifice their wealth for carrying out the moral values.
According to the Rawls philosophy, the money is earned as a whole of the society and with that
the working class will be benefited. But Nozick is not concerned about the wealth which will be
distributed as it is focused on the welfare of the people. Through the time slices and patterned
principles it is suggested that the behaviour of the individual matters rather than the income. The
main argument of Nozick against Rawls is that it is unjust if to give others one has to be deprived

of their wealth. He says it will be unjust of that person as well as the society who will be getting
that wealth (Nussbaum & Martha, 2007).
There are some arguments which have flaws in it. I personally believe that the individual
is earning for himself as well as the society. Without the labour class, the contractors will not be
able to earn the profit which they are earning at present. So due to this reason, I believe that the
wealth of the contractors should be distributed so that the economy or the labour class gets the
basic amenities. If they will get the basic facility then there standard of living can be raised
which will help in developing the society. Another flaw which I have witnessed in the Nozick
philosophy is that he states that the resources are distributed equally to the lower class and it is
the hard work which makes them to earn money. But this is not true as the opportunities as well
as resources are more with the rich class and because of certain aspects they are not distributed
equally. I feel this is the first step which marks the beginning of unequal distribution of wealth.
I support the central claim given by Rawls, that is, there should be re-distribution of a
portion of citizen’s wealth to those who are least advantaged. It is because; every wealthy society
is earning and getting advantaged with the efforts made by all economic classes directly or
indirectly. This is the reason; when results are gained in terms of fruits of cooperation, a portion
should be distributed among all (Freeman, Samuel & Rawls, 2007). People born wealthy can
never live a life that they are leading without having support of other economic classes. Thus,
there must be re-distribution of portion of wealth with all those who contribute in improving the
living standards of wealthy societies so that they can also enjoy a life with having all facilities
they require.