Discussions Response
please treat each Discussions Response separately
Daniel M
Nozick believed in a minimal interference of government, which is in contrast to Rawls who believed the government should exist to ensure everyone is treated equally and should take concrete steps to reach that goal. Nozick firmly believed the government does not have the right to interfere with people without the direct request from the people. This applied to taxes and property as well. Justice in Acquisition is Nozick’s belief that if someone fairly obtained their property, meaning they did not illegally steal it from someone else, and was fair in the amount they took so as to not deprive other people, then it was a fair acquisition. At this point, the government has no authority to come in and attempt to redistribute that property, as it was acquired fairly. Nozick also believed that if the property included resources such as water from a river, being used by others previously, then it is imperative the person who acquired the property ensure the others can continue to utilize the resource, or water. He does note however that it is entirely up to the new property owner who acquired the property owner as to the amount and methods of obtaining and using that resource, since they are now the owner. Put simply, this means whoever obtained a property first has rights to it, but they can’t be so unfair the strip the ability of others surrounding it to utilize natural resources on it, and they cannot take more property than is fair so as to deprive others of the chance to own any.
Chauncie H
The “veil of ignorance” is a moral reasoning device designed to promote impartial decision making by denying decision makers access to potentially biasing information. Rawls thought experiment on this was that we should imagine we sit behind a veil of ignorance that keeps us from knowing who we are and identifying with our personal circumstances. By being ignorant of our circumstances we can more objectively consider how societies operate. He also stated that decision-makers are assumed to be purely self-interested but their decisions are constrained by the absence of information that they could use to select principles favorable to their personal circumstances. Now, what I think he means by that is thinking back to slavery on people thought it was a good idea to have slaves and the view of ignorance would have given them a right to refuse slaveries, and it would only affect the slave owners, because of what they were doing to the slaves. I definitely agree with this. I think the veil of ignorance gives us a way to sort of create a way for fairness, and it’s something that we definitely need to work on even in this time, I think a lot of people see it as they don’t have to be favorite anything because it’s theirs and that’s what we have to normalize, something may be yours, but the same time it’s nothing wrong with being fair, telling someone something or even sharing a little bit of information with them.
https://www.pnas.org/action/oidcCallback?idpCode=connect&error=login_required&error_descriiption=Login+required&state=2_nk-vDIpU9kPph5oTgFHjCiMKSknNGbQmhWGL0QnxMLinks to an external site.
For This or a Similar Paper Click Here To Order Now
