The Argument Against Nozick's "Distributive Justice" non-owned", the transfer of assets, and the rectification of injustice in the holdings.1 Nozick's theory that what makes a transfer of holdings "just" should be rejected for two main reasons and the rectification of the The injustice of exploitation should be rejected for two main reasons. Robert Nozick declares a transfer of holdings. only if the exchange is voluntary and the assets exchanged were originally acquired by fair means.2 The first key point in this argument that should be rejected is that the basis for a "fair" transfer of Assets rely solely on whether or not the exchange was voluntary by both parties. With this low level of justice, it allows for voluntary exchanges in which one party, unknowingly, probably due to circumstances they cannot control, such as limited mental capacity, might voluntarily engage in a transfer of assets that would negatively affect it, indirectly or directly. These persons may voluntarily accept a transfer of interests which they would certainly not accept if they were of sound mind and could take into account all the factors involved in the transfer. There are those people who are not of sound mind or do not have the mental capacity to keep their best interests in mind, and there are also people who would happily take advantage of those people to advance their own selfish programs. If one were to support Nozick's arguments about what makes a transfer of property "fair", one would be allowing people to deceive people of lesser mental capacity into losing what is rightfully theirs middle of paper ..... .and make the whole process of exchange and acquisition very slow and tedious. Unless there is a way to effectively track and record every transaction, in a quick and streamlined manner, asset rectification could effectively shut down a market. Thus, for the four reasons mentioned above, the themes addressed by Robert Nozick on the transfer and rectification of assets within his company, the theory of law must be rejected. Not only are Nozick's proposals ineffective and immoral, they may also create double standards as to what constitutes injustice. Works Cited1 Robert Nozick, “'Distributive Justice' from Anarchy, State and Utopia” in Tamar Szabó Gendler, Susanna Siegel, and Steven M. Cahn (eds.), The Elements of Philosophy: Readings from Past and Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 309—310.2Nozick, 309

Essay / The Argument Against Nozick's "Distributive Justice" non-owned", the transfer of assets, and the rectification of injustice in the holdings.1 Nozick's theory that what makes a transfer of holdings "just" should be rejected for two main reasons and the rectification of the The injustice of exploitation should be rejected for two main reasons. Robert Nozick declares a transfer of holdings. only if the exchange is voluntary and the assets exchanged were originally acquired by fair means.2 The first key point in this argument that should be rejected is that the basis for a "fair" transfer of Assets rely solely on whether or not the exchange was voluntary by both parties. With this low level of justice, it allows for voluntary exchanges in which one party, unknowingly, probably due to circumstances they cannot control, such as limited mental capacity, might voluntarily engage in a transfer of assets that would negatively affect it, indirectly or directly. These persons may voluntarily accept a transfer of interests which they would certainly not accept if they were of sound mind and could take into account all the factors involved in the transfer. There are those people who are not of sound mind or do not have the mental capacity to keep their best interests in mind, and there are also people who would happily take advantage of those people to advance their own selfish programs. If one were to support Nozick's arguments about what makes a transfer of property "fair", one would be allowing people to deceive people of lesser mental capacity into losing what is rightfully theirs middle of paper ..... .and make the whole process of exchange and acquisition very slow and tedious. Unless there is a way to effectively track and record every transaction, in a quick and streamlined manner, asset rectification could effectively shut down a market. Thus, for the four reasons mentioned above, the themes addressed by Robert Nozick on the transfer and rectification of assets within his company, the theory of law must be rejected. Not only are Nozick's proposals ineffective and immoral, they may also create double standards as to what constitutes injustice. Works Cited1 Robert Nozick, “'Distributive Justice' from Anarchy, State and Utopia” in Tamar Szabó Gendler, Susanna Siegel, and Steven M. Cahn (eds.), The Elements of Philosophy: Readings from Past and Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 309—310.2Nozick, 309—310.3Nozick, 310.4Nozick, 311.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch