Joseph Lee Nicolas Parra of Section D002 of GENED 1121 produced Paper 2, which discusses the opposing views on justice of John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Rawls argued in his book, A Theory of Justice, that justice is the top virtue in social institutions, providing fairness, liberty, and equality when distributing social primary goods, opportunities, and rights. He created two principles of justice to balance equality and liberty - with the difference principle allowing for economic inequalities to benefit those who are least advantaged in society. On the other hand, Nozick was a critic of Rawls' liberal egalitarianism, seeing libertarianism as more just. His book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, criticized Rawls' theory of justice, claiming that the difference principle contradicted the liberty principle and that social and political institutions had no right to redistribute wealth. He advocated for individual rights, minimal government, and freely and legitimately distributed economic inequality. Rawls' and Nozick's arguments demonstrated different views on justice, with Rawls' defending equal access to primary social goods, while Nozick favored individual rights and limited government.

Rawls established his theory by examining simple concepts of social organization and political institutions, identifying justice as a complex and difficult concept to define accurately. He believed that a just society is one where institutions maximize the net balance of satisfaction, preserving individuals' liberties, civil, economic, and political rights, wealth, income, and other social primary goods derived from social collaboration. Rawls' theory of justice aimed to safeguard individual rights whilst maintaining the benefits of society as a whole, in contrast to utilitarianism that sacrifices individual rights for societal benefits. To establish principles for a just society, Rawls developed a novel thought experiment called the 'veil of ignorance,' an original position where individuals decide what principles are fair for everyone by removing their social position, status, talents, or wealth from consideration. The experiment considered how we would establish principles if we were unaware of our position in society, focusing on defending those individuals who are less fortunate, placing an insurance policy emphasizing the worst off. If any injustice is perceived, principles will be revised to benefit the worst-off in society.

In summary, Rawls' argument emphasizes equal access to primary social goods, while Nozick focuses on individual rights and limited government. Rawls used a thought experiment called the "veil of ignorance" to investigate fair principles for all individuals. The experiment suggested revising social inequalities to benefit the worst off in society.

Rawls presents a compelling theory of justice for institutions, but Robert Nozick, his contemporary, disagrees with Rawls. Nozick argues against Rawls' idea that the limited state is the most just form of government as it preserved liberty. According to Nozick, the government should not have a say over the redistribution of wealth or other inequalities. In his book, "Anarchy, The State, and Utopia," Nozick challenges the overreach of government that Rawls' concept of justice would require, suggesting that voluntary economic inequalities are not unjust. He supports his stance with the “Wilt Chamberlain example,” which demonstrates how individuals freely chose to increase the economic inequality of Wilt Chamberlain. Thus, Nozick believes that economic inequality is just and fair as long as it was accomplished voluntarily and legitimately.

Furthermore, Nozick asserts that Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness," which advocates for an egalitarian society while respecting individual rights, is flawed. Nozick argues that Rawls is using human beings as a means to an end by infringing on their rights. Consequently, a truly just society would be libertarian, since Rawls' theory of justice is contradictory. Nozick believes that each principle of justice patterns or intrudes on individuals' rights. Thus, Nozick prefers an unpatterned or libertarian society that prevents continuous interference with people's lives. For Nozick, the underlying Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means means individuals are inviolable and may not be sacrificed or used for achieving other ends without their consent.

In conclusion, Rawls and Nozick present opposing views on theories of justice. While Rawls proposes an egalitarian society that preserves the rights of individuals, Nozick advocates for a libertarian society that does not pattern and enables voluntary economic inequality. Nozick highlights the importance of respecting individuals' rights and freedom to choose.