Compare and contrast critically the views of distributive justice Essay

Compare and contrast critically the views of distributive justice presented by Rawls and by Nozick. Which is the more convincing account - Essay Example This section will attempt to highlight some of the different perspectives touching on distributive justice with regard to the two philosophers’ account of understanding. In the various perspectives, there are different positions held by the two philosophers either in the affirmative or opposition. According to Rawls, Justice for the individual tends to be overlooked for the general well being of the society. This position of understanding distributive justice therefore usually generates an egalitarian approach. Based on equitable grounds, a decision concerning separate individuals has to weigh available options on the utility that each of the actions would bring to the society. Utilitarianism guides the principle of distributive justice where the overall good for the society determines the worth of pursuing a particular course of action. Robert Nozick postulates the â€Å"original position† where all parties stand to benefit in a social decision making platform (Hendin, 2010). Inequalities are weeded out by distributing them among the society members so as to avoid some disadvantage on some while others benefit (difference principle). Nozick’s position is however a contestation and opposition of Rawls view under the two situations; difference principle and original position. In order for these provisions to hold true, ignorance must guide the society. Nozick argues that arbitrary scenarios guide the direction of the social decisions regarding distinction of persons based on their resource endowment if Rawls’ observations are true (Leif, 2008). Nozick instead argues that some form of sacrifice is involved where people willingly opt to dedicate their rights for the general good of the society. Different individuals make up the society and their rights are as well distinct from each other’s. In order for the rest to benefit from one individual, the person must be