澳洲昆士兰代写作业:篮球运动员

2018-12-30 18:01

在罗伯特•诺齐克(Robert Nozick)著名的《无政府主义、国家和乌托邦》(Anarchy,State, and Utopia)一书中，诺齐克举了一个篮球运动员的例子，他变得比其他人富裕得多，以此证明自由与任何分配正义的模式理论都是不相容的。这个论点如果成功的话，对罗尔斯来说将是一个相当大的挑战，因为他的理论在他的正义概念中优先考虑自由，但也需要一些财富的再分配(由“差异原则”决定)。如果诺齐克认为模式理论(“差异原则”就是其中之一)与自由不相容是正确的，那么罗尔斯的计划就会瓦解为自由主义理论，因为第一原则(自由)必须优先于第二再分配原则。首先，我将论证威尔特•张伯伦的论点不是在乞求问题，因为它假设了自我所有权而不是绝对财产权(后者是模式理论必须否认的)，并试图从前者派生出后者。其次，我认为，将自由解释为自我拥有，确实会导致自由与模式理论的不相容，只要我们废除最初获得的洛克条款。诺齐克将分配正义理论分为两类。第一个分类是一个理论是历史的还是非历史的，这是一个理论是否考虑过去的行为/事件/环境(历史)或不(非历史)之间的区别。诺齐克在不同的分配正义理论之间做出的更重要的区别是有模式的理论和没有模式的理论之间的区别。正义模式理论是一种分配份额由某种变量决定或与之相关的理论。例如，功利主义的正义理论是一种模式正义理论，因为它会根据效用的大小来分配社会商品。一个没有模式的理论不能决定谁可以通过引用世界上的某个变量来得到什么。要解释一种没有模式的正义理论，最好(似乎也是唯一)的方法不是决定谁应该得到什么，而是通过什么方式，谁可以得到什么;我们可以称之为程序正义理论。诺齐克反对模式正义理论的理由是它们与自由不相容，并以威尔特·张伯伦为例来证明这一点。
澳洲昆士兰代写作业:篮球运动员
In Robert Nozick’s famed Anarchy,State, and Utopia Nozick uses the example of a basketball player who becomes considerably richer than the rest of the population to demonstrate that liberty is incompatible with any patterned theory of distributive justice. This argument, if successful, would be a considerable challenge for Rawls because his theory prioritises liberty in his conception of justice but also requires some redistribution of wealth (as determined by ‘the difference principle’). If Nozick is right that a patterned theory (of which ‘the difference principle’ is one) is incompatible with liberty then the Rawlsian project collapses into a libertarian theory because the first principle (liberty) must be favoured over the second redistributive principle. First I will argue that the Wilt Chamberlain argument is not question-begging because it assumes self-ownership and not absolute property rights (the latter is what the patterned theory must deny) and attempts to derive the latter from the former. Second I will argue that interpreting liberty as self-ownership does entail the incompatibility of liberty and a patterned theory as long as we do away with a Lockean proviso on initial acquisition.Nozick categorises theories of distributive justice by two classifications. The first classification is whether a theory is historical or ahistorical which is the distinction between whether a theory takes into account past actions/events/circumstances (historical) or not (ahistorical). The more important distinction that Nozick makes between varying theories of distributive justice is between patterned and unpatterned theories. A patterned theory of justice is one in which distributive shares are determined or correlated with some variable. For example a utilitarian theory of justice would be a patterned theory of justice because it would distribute social goods according to how much utility they promote. An unpatterned theory would not determine who is to get what by reference to some variable in the world. The best (and seemingly the only) way to interpret an unpatterned theory of justice is to not determine who is to get what but by what means who can get what; we may call this a procedural theory of justice. Nozick’s argument against patterned theories of justice is that they are incompatible with liberty and uses the example of Wilt Chamberlain to argue for this point.

• 上一篇：澳洲昆士兰代写assignment:自然的事件
• 下一篇：澳大利亚昆士兰代写assignment:实现的总体目标