DOCSLIB.ORG

Desert and Nozick's Entitlement Theory: a Reconciliation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Desert and Nozick's Entitlement Theory: a Reconciliation Desert and Nozick's Entitlement Theory: A Reconciliation LO, Ho Man A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy in Government and Public Administration © The Chinese University of Hong Kong September 2008 The Chinese University of Hong Kong holds the copyright of this thesis. Any person(s) intending to use a part or whole of the materials in the thesis in a proposed publication must seek copyright release from the Dean of the Graduate School. (•(Trifirji統系餘書圖 ) Thesis/ Assessment Committee Professor Wu Fengshi (Chair) Professor Chow Po Chung (Thesis Supervisor) Professor Li Hon Lam (Committee Member) Professor Shei Ser Min (External Examiner) ABSTRACT This thesis aims to examine the role of desert in Nozick's libertarian entitlement theory of justice. I shall argue that it is wrong for Nozick to exclude desert from his philosophical enterprise. For a reasonable political morality should take desert seriously. Disregarding the claim of desert in libertarian justice is unnecessary and undesirable even from a Nozickean internal point of view. To vindicate my claim, I shall first offer a general analysis of the notion of desert in Chapter 1. The distinctive features of desert will be carefully explicated. I then turn to discuss the moral significance of desert in Chapter 2. The central idea is that giving an agent what he deserves will express the moral ideal of autonomy and responsibility, and establish congruence between the basis of desert and the treatment of desert. Having set up this intellectual background, Chapter 3 evaluates Nozick's three objections to desert. These objections result from Nozick's viewing desert as a kind of patterned principle, which in turn has deep conflict with his commitments to freedom, negative rights as side-constraint, and the notion of self ownership. I reject these objections one by one by showing that they are either ungrounded or inconsistent with other parts of the entitlement theory. In Chapter 4, I attempt to offer two Nozickean positive arguments for the importance of desert. In a nutshell, a cooperative scheme in accordance with desert can promote social harmony and provide an ideal environment for people to realize a meaningful life. Since Nozick deeply recognizes the value of a meaningful life, he should include desert in the entitlement theory to make the theory more plausible and attractive. Finally, in the last chapter, I explore the theoretical implication of a desert-inclusive entitlement theory. 2 論文撮要 本論文旨在探討「應得」（Desert)在諾齊克的產權理論中的角色。我將論證，諾 齊克把應得從產權理論排除出去是錯誤的，因爲一套合理的政治倫理必須給予 應得一定的位置。即使從諾齊克的觀點出發，他在放任自由主義的正義理論裡 否定應得，既不必要，亦不可欲。爲證成上述觀點，我將在第一章分析應得的 槪念，並指出其獨有的特徵，然後在第二章探討應得的道德重要性。該章指 出，給予一個人所應得的報酬，能夠很好地體現自主及責任這兩項道德價値， 並令應得的基礎和應得的回報彼此契合。釐清應得的槪念及其重要性後，第三 章將檢視諾齊克反對應得的三個理由。他認爲應得是一種具特定模式的分配理 論，而這種理論與他相當重視的自由、消極權利和自我擁有權皆有衝突。但我 將逐一論證上述三項反對理由均不成立，因爲它們要麼毫無根據，要麼和諾齊 克的產權理論有內在不一致之處。在第四章，我將轉而論證，即使從諾齊克的 觀點出發，應得依然在道德上有重要價値。應得一方面能夠促進社會和諧，另 一方面提供一個有利環境，供人追求和實踐有意義的人生。這兩點都是諾齊克 深爲認同的。因此，爲了增加產權理論的合理性和吸引力，他理應在其理論中 加入應得這一考慮。在最後一章，我將探討如把應得納入產權理論，將爲該理 論帶來怎樣的轉變。 3 AUTHOR'S DECLARATION I declare that the work presented in this thesis is mine alone LO Ho-man 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It has been a long, tough and yet fruitful adventure. Towards the end of it, I have a complex feeling, because so many things happened in the course. I am glad that, finally, I am able to go through tests after tests. Looking back, there were sweats and tears. Yet I am sure they are going to help me overcome other challenges in my life. First and foremost, I would like to say the greatest thank to my supervisor, Mr. Chow Po Chung. We met six years ago when he and I were a new teacher and a new student in the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Since then, we spent numerous moments in the campus, his home and restaurants in Tai Po discussing politics, philosophy and life. He not only brought me into the world of political philosophy, taught me a proper way to conduct academic research. He also instilled the most valuable thing in life to me, namely, some unconventional but persuasive ways to live happily and rightfully. I am greatly indebted to this special and important teacher. Without him, I would not have known the significance and the interest of political philosophy. Without him, I would not be able to know what a good teacher and a good researcher should be. Without him, I would not be able to improve and become a better student and researcher as I am now. It is his teaching, patience and all- rounded support that allow me to finish this project and grow to be an apprenticing researcher. I also felt gratitude to friends and classmates who gave stimulations and insights in the course of learning political philosophy. Cham, Jester, James, Franz, Jacky, Baldwin, Sze Ling, thank you. Special gratitude is given to Cheukhang, who 5 brought me a lot of useful ideas when I formulated my argument and who kept encouraging and supporting me. I would like to thank Candy Cheung, who gave me unlimited energy, support and care in the final stage of this thesis. Lastly, I want to thank my family. Without their unfailing support and love, it would not be possible for me to finish this thesis and overcome the hard times in the course. This thesis is dedicated to my mother and father, whose love, encouragement and patience are most valuable for me. To express my gratitude to everyone I treasure would need a full chapter. I cannot but choose to payback what you have given me with a short but true note: For those who love and have loved me, I honestly love you. 6 CONTENT ABSTRACT 2 AUTHOR'S DECLARATION 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 5 CONTENT 7 INTRODUCTION 9 CHAPTER 1 A CONCEPTION OF DESERT IN 13 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE 1 The Structure and Features of Desert 14 2 Desert Basis 26 CHAPTER 2 THE MORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF DESERT 34 1 Emotional Response to Undeserved Treatment 35 2 Desert and Autonomy 36 3 Desert, Congruence and the Meaning of the Good 40 CHAPTER 3 THE ENTITLEMENT THEORY AND 43 OBJECTIONS TO DESERT 1 Outline of the Entitlement Theory 43 2 Desert as a Patterned Principle 53 3 Argument from Liberty 55 4 Argument from Right 71 5 Argument from Self-Ownership 90 7 CHAPTER 4 TWO NOZICKEAN ARGUMENTS FOR 101 DESERT 1 Individual Argument 101 2 Social Argument 110 CHAPTER 5 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A 127 DESERT-INCLUSIVE ENTITLEMENT THEORY 1 Desert: Pattern or a Strand of Pattern? 129 2 Desert and Property Right 140 3 A Desert-inclusive Entitlement Theory 152 CONCLUSION 157 BIBLIOGRAPHY 159 8 INTRODUCTION Desert is an important moral ideal in the tradition of social justice. Since Aristotle, it has been widely accepted that a just distribution should accord with people's desert. 1 The importance of desert is also supported by public perceptions of justice.^ According to empirical studies, a large number of people believe that people should get what they deserve. An undeserved situation would incline to create feelings of injustice. Our moral conviction and languages also testify that injustice would arise if one does not receive rewards or benefits that he deserves. Despite all these, the proper place of desert in distributive justice is far from clear. Philosophers constantly dispute about the proper role of desert in social justice. Some argue that justice is simply equivalent to giving what people deserve. For example, as Hosper asks, "justice is getting what one deserves; what could be simpler?"^ Some hold that desert should only partly decide what a just distribution is.4 Others, including Rawls and Nozick, do not consider desert at all in their theories of justice. Rawls explicitly excludes desert from his theory because he believes that moral worth, the basis of moral deservingness, cannot be determined until the principles of justice are established.^ Moreover, Rawls is also thought to worry about the inegalitarian consequence because distribution according to desert would "allow some to have unfair disadvantages over others, in that some would have greater ‘Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Terence Irwin trans., 2"�ed (Indianapolis. : Hackett Publishing Co., 1999), Book V, Chapter 3. Aristotle's judgment is also shared by Adam Smith, J.S. Mill and Henry Sidgwick. See Louis Pojman and Owen McLeod ed., What Do We Deserve, (Oxford: OUP, 1999). For a brief review of contemporary debate on desert, see Serena Olsaretti, "Debating Desert and Justice", in Serena Olsaretti ed., Desert and Justice, (Oxford: OUP, 2003) 2 David Miller, Principles of Social Justice, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), Ch. 4. 3 John Hosper, Human Conduct, (NY: Harcourt, 1961), p. 433. 4 Joel Feinberg, "Justice and personal desert", in Doing and deserving, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970); David Miller, Principles of Social Justice�and George Sher, Desert, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987) 5 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 275. 9 claims on the basis of better natural endowments and social circumstances, which they cannot claim credit for."^ Nozick's concern is different from Rawls. He rejects any claim of desert because he believes it would violate his right-based entitlement theory. He views desert as a kind of patterned principle which would have deep conflict with individual freedom, personal negative rights and the notion of self- ownership. This explains why he entirely sets the concern of desert aside. It is quite unusual that the notion of desert has played such an insignificant role in Rawls and Nozick. After all, it is our considered judgment that desert should be an important element of social justice. The judgment of desert also deeply affects our moral sentiments. Therefore, both Rawls and Nozick owe us an account of why their theories are so hostile to the claim of desert. My focus of this thesis will be on Nozick's entitlement theory.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Entitlement Theory of Justice and End-State Fairness in the Allocation of Goods
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Economics Department Working Paper Series Economics 2016 Entitlement theory of justice and end-state fairness in the allocation of goods Biung-Ghi Ju Department of Economics, Seoul National University, Korea Juan D. Moreno-Ternero Department of Economics, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Spain, and CORE, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_workingpaper Part of the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Ju, Biung-Ghi and Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., "Entitlement theory of justice and end-state fairness in the allocation of goods" (2016). Economics Department Working Paper Series. 213. https://doi.org/10.7275/9452364 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economics Department Working Paper Series by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS Working Paper Entitlement theory of justice and end-state fairness in the allocation of goods by Biung-Ghi Ju Juan D. Moreno-Ternero Working Paper 2016-14 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Entitlement theory of justice and end-state fairness in the allocation of goods⇤ Biung-Ghi Ju† Juan D. Moreno-Ternero‡ November 18, 2016 Abstract Robert Nozick allegedly introduced his liberal theory of private ownership as an objec- tion to theories of end-state justice. Nevertheless, we show that, in a stylized framework for the allocation of goods in joint ventures, both approaches can be seen as complemen- tary. More precisely, in such a context, self-ownership (the basis for Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice) followed by voluntary transfer (Nozick’s principle of just transfer) can lead to end-state fairness (as well as Pareto efficiency).
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Autonomy and State Involvement in Health Care
    J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.27.4.240 on 1 August 2001. Downloaded from Journal of Medical Ethics 2001;27:240–244 Individual autonomy and state involvement in health care Thomas Rice UCLA School of Public Heath, Los Angeles, USA Abstract this have for the role that government does–and This article examines the ethical basis for government should–have in health care? This article considers involvement in health care. It first provides the case for these issues. individual autonomy, focusing on the justifications–particularly ethical ones–for allowing The case for individual autonomy individuals to make their own choices in health care, There are many reasons to believe that individuals and to control more of their own resources in doing so. should be able to make their own choices in health Next, it provides the opposite case–for abridging care. Moreover, there are reasons to think they individual autonomy, and in particular, for should have control over (more of) their resources redistributing resources from those who are well oV to in order to make these choices rather than having those who are not. The overriding reason for favouring them taxed away by government. This section the latter case, which trumps the notion of individual focuses on three major advantages of consumer autonomy, is to ensure that individuals who are at a sovereignty in health care. These advantages are disadvantage have an equal probability of attaining categorised below under the headings of economic good health. eYciency, psychology, and fairness. (Journal of Medical Ethics 2001;27:240–244) Keywords: Distributive justice; ethics; government; health ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY care The central tenet of traditional economic theory is that consumers will be best oV if they are allowed to make their own choices about the goods and serv- Introduction ices they consume.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Ownership, World-Ownership, and Initial Acquisition
    LIBERTARIAN PAPERS VOL. 2, ART. NO. 36 (2010) SELF-OWNERSHIP, WORLD-OWNERSHIP, AND INITIAL ACQUISITION TRISTAN ROGERS* 1. Introduction G.A. COHEN’S WORK Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality1 is a highly regarded and widely influential critique of Robert Nozick’s canonical libertarian work Anarchy, State, and Utopia.2 Since much contemporary libertarian theory is indebted to Nozick, a successful dismantling of Nozick’s theory would seem to pose quite a threat to libertarianism more generally. But as Nozick himself said, “There is room for words on subjects other than last words.”3 Indeed, one of the chief virtues of Nozick’s work is its open exploratory approach. So, just as Nozick provides a starting point for the exploration of libertarianism, Cohen forces the libertarian theorist to confront difficult challenges, which sometimes result in the reaffirmation of a position, sometimes in revision. This eventually spawns a deeper and stronger theory. It is a modest step towards this lofty goal that this paper attempts. To orient the debate, I begin by briefly sketching Nozick’s familiar Entitlement Theory of Justice. I then present and respond to Cohen’s criticism at three stages. The first is the self-ownership stage, where Cohen does not attempt to refute the thesis of self-ownership, but instead attempts to cast doubt on it, in *Tristan Rogers ([email protected]) is an MA Candidate, Department of Philosophy, Queen’s University, in Kingston, ON, Canada. Thanks are due to Pablo Gilabert, Tara Myketiak, Jan Narveson, David Schmidtz, the editor of this journal, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Duty to Reject Nozick's Entitlement Theory and Advocate
    The moral duty to reject Nozick’s Entitlement Theory and advocate for Distributive Justice Cathy Darling The philosopher Robert Nozick argues that taxation to fund distributive justice such as welfare payments is morally wrong.1 This essay will explain and assess his entitlement theory of justice and will conclude that an ideal moral code ought to reject Nozick’s theory. Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of Justice As a libertarian, Nozick argues that the starting ethical principle to guide state action ought to be the non-violation of individual rights. Since assets and goods originated from somewhere, he proposes that we establish the justice of both the original acquisition and the later transfer of assets and goods (“holdings”). If current possession of goods came about through past injustice, Nozick argues that ‘rectification’ is necessary.2 Simply put, Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice demands that if the historic transactions of exchange were fair, there is no moral justification for state infringement on the current ownership of holdings. Imagine both myself and Bob are college students. In my spare time I work 20 hours a week while Bob prefers to spend his spare time reading philosophical texts. When I am paid, my salary has tax deductions which reduce my earnings by 20%. Ultimately I have worked 4 hours for free for the state coffers. Bob and I benefit equally from the goods that a minimum 1 Robert, Nozick. The Entitlement Theory of Justice. p, 537. 2 ibid., p, 528. state provides such as defence, security and policing. Yet all things being equal, should Bob be forced to give up 4 hours of his time reading philosophy to work for the common good of serving the needs of others? Presumably most would agree forced labour would be an unjustified infringement on Bob’s personal freedom.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Uil Lincoln-Douglas Debate Research Series Vol. 19 Spring 2013 No
    1 TEXAS UIL LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE RESEARCH SERIES VOL. 19 SPRING 2013 NO. 2 RESOLVED: IN MATTERS OF JUSTICE, JOHN RAWLS' DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE OUGHT TO BE PREFERRED OVER ROBERT NOZICK'S ENTITLEMENT THEORY. Lincoln Douglas was created as a debate format designed to emphasize questions of value. Effective participation in Lincoln Douglas debate produces familiarity with the great philosophers of the ages. The Spring 2013 UIL Lincoln-Douglas topic offers an exciting opportunity to explore the two leading theories of justice. This topic will give debaters an opportunity to understand how the current political divide in American politics finds its roots in classic philosophical theories. Libertarians, such as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, and Tea Party candidates such as Minnesota Representative Michele Bachman, argue for lower taxes, less welfare spending, and minimal government. President Obama, along with most Congressional Democrats, argues that wealthy individuals should pay more taxes so that the federal government can continue to support domestic welfare spending. John Stick, professor of law at the University of Southern California Law Center, traces the origin of these current political divisions to the competing philosophies of Rawls and Nozick: The relationship between Rawls and Nozick is not a matter of interest for philosophers only. Although the first burst of discussion that greeted their work in the early 1970s has passed, many of the present legal policy debates between liberals and conservatives over the distribution of wealth, the nature of property rights, and the proper role of government in regulating the market are strongly influenced by Nozick and Rawls. Most contemporary theorists that oppose progressive taxation because it interferes with the functioning of the market rely on Nozick's political arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Liberal Justice Thomas: an Analysis of Justice Thomas’S Articulation and Application of Classical Liberalism
    THE LIBERAL JUSTICE THOMAS: AN ANALYSIS OF JUSTICE THOMAS’S ARTICULATION AND APPLICATION OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM Adam J. Hunt* Introduction................................................................................................557 I. The Theoretical Framework of Classical Liberalism and the Rawlsian Counterpoint ......................................................559 II. Allusions to Classic Liberal Theory in Justice Thomas’s Speeches and Writings....................................................565 III. Theory in Practice: Thomas’s Judicial Opinions ...........................575 Conclusion ..................................................................................................581 INTRODUCTION In both his public speeches and his Supreme Court opinions, Justice Clarence Thomas uses language that articulates a consti- tutional and political theory with roots in the ideas of classical * Student at New York University School of Law, J.D. expected 2010. Thanks to Prof. Rick Pildes, Prof. Deborah Malamud, and the staff of the NYU Journal of Law and Liberty. 557 558 New York University Journal of Law & Liberty [Vol. 4:557 liberalism.1 Thomas frequently espouses normative ideals com- monly associated with classic liberal, or libertarian, thought in his public speeches and writings2— limited government, the rule of law, personal responsibility, and freedom from restraint.3 In keeping with these principles, Justice Thomas often puts classical liberal theory into practice when writing judicial opinions in Na- tional Labor
    [Show full text]
  • Nozick's Entitlement Theory of Justice
    Aporia vol. 24 no. 1 — 2014 Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of Justice: A Response to the Objection of Arbitrariness MATTHEW FICKER hough several factors contributed to the eventual conclusion of the Cold War, one of the most influential causes was the notion of T mutually assured destruction: the well - founded belief that if either the Soviet Union or the United States acted against the other, the result would be the annihilation of both nations. Because neither nation would risk this type of destruction, the so - called war was fuelled by psychological, political, and ideological tensions. Though the Cold War ended decades ago, and though the threat of nuclear conflict between the former Soviet Union and the United States has essentially dissolved, a different kind of war rages on today. In political philosophy, scholars continue to debate about the prin- ciples for which the war was fought — the principles of liberty and freedom on the one hand and the principles of justice and equality on the other. Among these scholars are Robert Nozick and G. A. Cohen, and each takes an opposing position in this philosophical battle. Nozick supports the libertarian notions of distributive justice, and Cohen supports the egalitarian view. In this paper, I will consider one of Cohen’s objections to Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of distributive justice, the argument of Matthew Ficker is a senior majoring in philosophy with a minor in psychology at Brigham Young University. He is primarily interested in ethics. After graduating, he intends to pursue technical training in computer software and hardware development. This paper placed third in the 2014 David H.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of Robert Nozick's Entitlement Theory
    A CRITIQUE OF ROBERT NOZICK’S ENTITLEMENT THEORY by Mykyta Storozhenko A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Department of Philosophy Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & Letters In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors. Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Fl May 2018 A CRITIQUE OF ROBERT NOZICK’S ENTITLEMENT THEORY by Mykyta Storozhenko This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr. Clevis Headley, Department of Philosophy, and has been approved by the members of his supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the Philosophy Department and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors distinction. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: ____________________________________ Clevis Headley, Ph.D. Thesis Advisor ____________________________________ Marina P. Banchetti, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Date ii ABSTRACT Author: Mykyta Storozhenko Title: A Critique of Robert Nozick’s Entitlement Theory Institution: Florida Atlantic University Thesis Advisor: Dr. Clevis Headley Degree: Bachelor of Arts with Honors Year: 2018 Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory is seen as the preeminent theory of libertarian distributive justice. It is my intention, however, to demonstrate the various flaws inherent within his theory as follows: (1) I will examine his whole entitlement theory, as well as the accompanying addendums which he uses to amplify the theory; and (2) offer a multifaceted critique of the entitlement theory and its addendums. The focus of my critique is that Nozick constructs a theory upon premises which are never clearly explained and remain vague. They are, therefore, unfit for the construction of a plausible theory of distributive justice.
    [Show full text]
  • From Entitlement Theory of Justice to Inalienable Rights
    Uncertainty and Risk: From Entitlement Theory of Justice to Inalienable Rights. Constantin Gurdgiev Department of Economics, Policy Institute, Trinity College, Dublin Open Republic Institute, Dublin. Abstract. The following paper presents a set of philosophical arguments that extend the standard set of property rights under the classical libertarian perspective to include the individual rights to ownership, management and transfer of risk and uncertainty. The paper shows that an extension of property rights, proposed below, strengthens the libertarian arguments concerning the sufficiency of the minimal state for achievement of liberty and justice. However, as argued in the paper, property rights extension alone does not support the argument in favour of the minimal state as a necessary condition for justice. To achieve such argument, we extend the argument concerning the inalienable rights to include the rights to risk and uncertainty. We show that in presence of such rights, the infamous Nozickian assertion concerning the potential implications of continuity of the space of rationality with regards to its role in separation of the human domain from that of the other biological species, no longer holds. In addition we establish that incorporation of individual rights over risk and uncertainty into the set inalienable rights allows for resolution of the Hansson’s causal dilution problem. 1 Introduction. In Anarchy, State and Utopia1 Robert Nozick presents three arguments in favour of the minimal state. The first argument arises from refutation of anarchism on the grounds of the state role in protecting property rights. This provides a positive justification of the minimal state arrangements that act to secure property rights against assault, theft and fraud.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Robert Nozick's Entitlement Theory By
    1 EVALUATION OF ROBERT NOZICK’S ENTITLEMENT THEORY BY ANIUME, KINGSLEY OKECHUKWU PG/M.A/10/57717 UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA FEBRUARY, 2014 i EVALUATION OF ROBERT NOZICK’S ENTITLEMENT THEORY BY ANIUME, KINGSLEY OKECHUKWU PG/M.A/10/57717 A DESERTATION PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTERS OF ARTS DEGREE IN PHILOSOPHY FEBRUARY, 2014 ii THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA FOR THE AWARD OF MASTERS OF ARTS (MA) DEGREEE IN PHILOSOPHY BY ________________________ _______________________ Dr. A.C Areji SUPERVISOR INTERNAL EXAMINER _______________________ ______________________________ Rev. Fr. Dr. M.C Chukwuelobe Rev. Fr. Prof. Marcel Izu Onyeocha (H.O.D) EXTERNAL EXAMINER _____________________________ Prof. C.O.T Ugwu DEAN, FACULTY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCE iii CERTIFICATION Kingsley O. Aniume, a Master of Arts student in the Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, with Registration Number PG/M.A/10/57717, has satisfactorily completed the requirements (coursework and Dissertation) for the Award of Masters of Arts Degree (M.A) in Philosophy. This Dissertation is original and has not to the best of my knowledge, been submitted in part or full for any other degree of this or any other University. __________________________ DR. A.C AREJI (SUPERVISOR) iv DEDICATION The research is dedicated to St. Anthony of Padua who has been helping me to scale through all the hurdles in my life. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank the Almighty God who has given me the strength to carry on all my academic programmes in the year 2012 and making it possible for all of them to come to a successful end.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems of Robert Nozick's Principle of Justice in Acqusition
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DSpace@KMU Journal of Alternative Perspectives in Human Sciences 1 (1): 21-30, 2010 ISSN: 1309-4718, www.nobel.gen.tr Problems of Robert Nozick’s Principle of Justice in Acqusition: Nozick’s Misunderstanding of the Nozickean Proviso and Its Consequences [1] Emre Arda Erdenk Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Department of Sociology, Karaman, TÜRKİYE Corresponding Author Received : April 30, 2010 e-mail: [email protected] Accepted : June 11, 2010 Abstract This paper examines Robert Nozick’s principle of justice in acqusitions that he suggests for the just appropriation of property. The work is mainly concentrated on the proviso suggested for the principle. The contention here is situated on the issues of Nozick’s reconstruction of Locke’s original version of the proviso and his claim that the principle is a ‘historical and non-patterend principle’. I will textually criticise Nozick’s understanding of his own version of the proviso and, while clarifiying his own version of the proviso, I will raise contextual problems concern- ing his misunderstanding. Ultimately, these issues are considered as crucially vital problems for this latter claim. His principle, conclusively, is not obligied only to serve for private property, but it can also work for other systems of property as well. This last point is quite unexpected and unwanted for Nozick himself. Hence, the principle clamped with the Nozickean proviso, does not compatible with Nozick’s claim of being ‘historical and non-patterned’. Key Words: Robert Nozick, Libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Entitlement Theory, Initial Acquisition.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarianism and Obligatory Child Support
    vol� 48/2015, pp� 90–106 ISSN 1505-2192 www�athenaeum�umk�pl DOI: 10�15804/athena�2015�48�07 LIbeRtarianIsm and obligatory Child suppoRt Łukasz Dominiak* — Abstract — In the present paper, I investigate the relation between the institution of obligatory child support and libertarianism, particularly a libertarian theory of distributive justice� I demonstrate that the institution of obliga- tory child support is incompatible with the classical libertarian theory of distributive justice as represented by Murray N� Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella or Robert Nozick� However, the main research question that I address in the paper is: What construal of the libertarian theory of distributive justice is the institution of obligatory child support compatible with? I hypothesise that obligatory child support is compatible with the libertarian theory of distributive justice interpreted in terms of the “finders-creators ethic”, as represented by Israel M� Kirzner� To inquire into the main research problem, I employ the method of reflec- tive equilibrium� — Keywords — libertarianism, distributive justice, obligatory child support, finders-creators ethic, homesteading, entitlement theory IntRoduCtIon It is commonly believed amongst libertarians that the institution of obligatory child support as an instance of uncontractual positive duty is incompatible with the fundamental tenets of the libertarian doctrine� As Walter Block puts * Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Faculty of Political Science and International Studies�
    [Show full text]