Comparison of Nozick's and Rawls's theories of justice

Justice has been explained by different theorists in different terms. The theories of John Rawls and Robert Nozick differ in key ways, but both theories are normative, offering a model of what they each believe justice should be.

John Rawls offered a conception of justice as an alternative to the doctrine of utilitarianism in his 1971 book a Theory of Justice. John Rawls states two principles of justice which he says are provisional. The first of these states that each person is to have an equal right to the most basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. The second states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to the advantage of everyone and b) attached to positions and offices open to all. Rawls says that these principles refer to the basic structure of society and that they are to govern the rights and duties and to regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages. He also says that an original position of equality is the correct standpoint from which to assess different theories of justice, and this position is the source of the two principles noted above. The principles agreed to in society are to regulate all further agreements and specify the types of cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that may be established, all based on the concept of justice as fairness.

Rawls states that he is concerned with social justice, and he says that the primary subject of justice is the basic structure of society, or "the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation" (Rawls, a Theory of Justice 7). The major institutions of society to which Rawls refers are pervasive and have profound effects on behavior and the distribution of benefits. These institutions embody deep-seated inequalities that may be inevitable in the basic structure of any society, and any principles of justice must apply to these inequalities (Rawls, a Theory of Justice 7).

Rawls states that the most rational way to arrive at utilitarianism in a society is to adopt for society as a whole the principle of rational choice for one man. He says it is the idea of the impartial spectator and the use of sympathetic identification that this is accomplished:

It is this spectator who is conceived as carrying out the required organization of the desires of all persons into one coherent system of desire; it is by this construction that many persons are fused into one... On this conception of society separate individuals are thought of as so many different lines along which rights and duties are to be assigned and scarce means of satisfaction allocated in accordance with rules so as to give the greatest fulfillment of wants (Rawls, a Theory of Justice 27).

Rawls sets out to propose a new theory, which he does by formulating two principles and "to show that the two principles of justice provide a better understanding of the claims of freedom and equality in a democratic society than the first principles associated with the traditional doctrines of utilitarianism, with perfectionism, or with institutionalism" (Rawls, Political Liberalism 292).

Nozick suggests an entitlement theory of justice that might seem to reflect the categorical imperative but which actually counters Kant's theory of property. John Rawls offered a revision of Kantian theory so it could be used as a grounding in ethical theory. Nozick also shows a strong commitment to prepolitical individual rights. He also recognizes that there are forces, including past injustices, which shape our holdings in society in various ways, raising the question of what ought to be done to rectify these injustices:

The general outlines of the theory of justice in holdings are that the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer, or by the principle of rectification of injustice (as specified by the first two principles). If each person's holdings are just, then the total set (distribution) of holdings is just (Nozick, "The Entitlement Theory" 255).