Nozick on Patterns of Justice - Shaira
Nozick’s principle of distribution states that “a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution” (151). To consider if one is entitled to this distribution, Nozick states that the distribution must follow the historical principle versus non-historical principles (current time-slice and end-result principles). This means that we must look at how the distribution came about and what actually happened rather than how things are distributed and who ends with what. For example, distribution following a non-historical principle may look like distribution according to the “weighted sum of moral merit, usefulness to society, and need…” (156).
Nozick argues that if we view distribution using the end-result principle, a pattern of justice can arise. A pattern of justice dictates and justifies distribution on the account of how and where things are distributed. For example, in a utilitarian society, things are distributed in a way that would result in the greatest sum of utility. He argues against a pattern of justice as “patterned distributional principles do not give people what entitlement principles,” and limits a person’s ability to choose what they want to do with what they have.
Reading the patterns of justice led me to question if and what types of patterns of justice exist in America. I believe that in American society, a level of meritocracy and nepotism exists. Meritocracy is a system in which goods are distributed on the basis of merit, or someone’s natural talent and achievements rather than one's wealths whereas nepotism is a system in which goods are distributed in relation to their relationships and what families one is born into. I see that meritocracy is becoming more and more prevalent in aspects of society; for example, I believe that colleges are making an effort to admit more people based on their qualifications over their legacy affiliations with their schools. When I think of meritocracy, I think of people being able to achieve and succeed in what they want on the basis of their individual efforts instead of their social position given to them at birth, which is a form of nepotism. I also see a lot of nepotism in today’s society such as getting a job position because of family/friend connections.
I argue that in an ideal society, justice should be unpatterned and historical because when meritocratic or nepotistic characteristics are introduced, inequalities may arise. However, I wonder if we can ever achieve said ideal society because I believe that there are aspects of meritocracy and nepotism that people who benefit from these systems cannot let go of. I would love to discuss the ways in which society can reach a non-patterned and historical way of distribution while letting go of the ideas and practices of meritocracy and nepotism, which I believe play a huge role in the distribution of things today.
Hi Shaira! I liked your analysis of Nozick’s principle on distribution. You did a good job of breaking down his principles and separating the importance of time in relation to the action of acquisition. When thinking about the acquisition of private property, he focuses on how the distribution itself occurred rather than patterned principles, which focus on the structure of that distribution, as you said. He highlights his theory under three topics. The first is the original acquisition of holdings; this refers to the process of how “unheld” (150) things come to be held. If the way an object becomes “held” by a person is just, then the holding of that object is just. People should do what they please with their holdings and should not be subject to outside interference or control over what they should and should not be able to do with it. The second is the transfer of holdings; this involves the conception of the exchange of said holdings. Nozick emphasizes the importance of voluntary trading on both sides of the party. The third is the rectification of justice in holdings, which attempts to rectify a situation in which the original acquisition of holdings or transfer of holdings was done unjustly.
ReplyDeleteYou raise a good point in bringing up nepotism and meritocracy and the inequalities that may rise from them. When you mentioned college in this context, it made me think of the college application process. At first glance, college applications seem like a just action based on the principles of the transfer of holdings. A prospective college student is voluntarily applying to a college and that college may choose to voluntarily accept that student. The exchange of goods and services were settled by free choices on both ends. However, in the case of inequality, certain students have advantages over others. Higher-income individuals are able to afford more activities to add to their resume. In addition, they have access to greater additional resources, such as SAT prep, tutors, and college counselors. It is the latter part of this advantage where the line between unjust and just becomes blurry. Students do not have to disclose this information, removing any transparency on how they were able to achieve certain holdings. Perhaps a student was only able to win a sports-related award because of all the additional help and high-performance equipment they had access to. With the college not knowing this information, which if they knew, they might have decided to reject the student instead (perhaps not seeing any merit in the acquisition of that award), is this a lack of truth on the student’s part? What counts and doesn’t count as unjust? Could admittance into college be an unjust transaction?
* PART 1: Hi Shaira and Aara, your discussion of meritocracy is really interesting. I think you both do an excellent job of summarizing Nozick’s argument and raising your own points. I'd like to advance an argument against Shaira’s ideal distribution, that being that a principle of distribution that is both historical and patterned based on merit is ideal.
ReplyDeleteShaira, you claimed that “in an ideal society, justice should be unpatterned and historical because when meritocratic or nepotistic characteristics are introduced, inequalities may arise." I am assuming when you say justice, you are meaning it in the sense that the distribution should be unpatterned and historical, or that the principle of distributive justice should be unpatterned and historical. I want to push back on this claim because the reasoning that underpins it is that "inequalities may arise." However, I do not think inequalities are inherently bad. I would contend that natural inequalities exist, and we ought not to rectify them if they arose as a result of merit. Consider two workers, who are the same in every respect (education, opportunities, social background) except for the fact that one of them wants to work 5 hours a day, whereas the other one wants to work 10 hours a day. Would it not be an injustice to compensate them equally? In my view, the worker who works 10 hours deserves to have a greater share of the distribution of compensation than the worker who works 5 hours, even though that creates inequality. Furthermore, even if I concede your point that inequality is bad, the unpatterned and historical principle of distributive justice advanced by Nozick and yourself also results in inequalities (using the Wilt Chamberlain example, free and fair transactions result in Wilt having a lot more money than everyone else). I do not think Nozick defends the unpatterned, historical principle of distribution based on a disdain for inequality, but rather a love for liberty (or at least, what he believes liberty to be).
*I have to do two parts because it's telling me my comment is too long
PART 2: While I agree with you and Nozick that the principle of distributive justice should be historical, I disagree that it shouldn’t be patterned. I think a distribution can be patterned based on merit and still take into account past actions and adapt to future voluntary transfers (in fact, not only do I think such a distribution can, I think it must). When I say merit, I mean a combination of both moral merit and competence (the highest professional virtue—encompassing work ethic, conscientiousness, intelligence, creativity, and similar factors). In response to patterned distributions, Nozick uses the Wilt Chamberlain example, saying that the new distribution (D_2) cannot be ideal in the mind of the person who created the initial distribution (D_1) and yet it arose as the result of free, voluntary, and just transfers. Yet I posit that in my ideal world, in which D_1 is a distribution patterned based on merit, D_2 is also a distribution patterned based on merit (and is therefore just) because Wilt only received all the extra money through his merit (his excellence on the basketball court). In this situation, there is no need for confiscation, no need for redistribution, and no need for anything that upsets liberty at all, thus defeating Nosick’s objection. The question then arises, however, if voluntary exchanges and merit-based patterning seemingly result in the same distribution, does a distribution patterned based on merit need a more extensive government than what Nozick supports? To this question I would tentatively answer yes (admittedly, partially just to be adventurous and disagree with Nozick). I think that in most cases, voluntary exchanges indeed lead to a distribution based on merit, but in the particular cases in which it doesn’t, a government is needed to continue patterning the distribution on merit (in contrast to liberty). I would have to think about this some more and I could also benefit from my peers’ input in order to determine what specific cases I’d be referring to, but it would likely entail some sort of exploitation which arises from voluntary exchanges and yet nevertheless results in a perverted distribution.
ReplyDeleteJosh, I would like to respond to your theory of distribution based on merit. I follow with you that the initial distribution (D_1) is based on merit. From what I can tell, this is similar to Hayek's theory that in a free society, distribution will be in accordance with value. However, in your ideal society, the people that receive benefits through voluntary exchanges are those who have the most merit. I like this idea of an initial distribution based on merit and many would agree with you that it is a just way to distribute resources initially. However, as you mention, I estimate that there would have to be extensive government reach to maintain distribution based on merit. Do you see inheritance, gifts, charity, etc. as problems to the distribution of resources based on merit? If someone's parents worked hard and made a lot of resources for themselves based on merit, why should their children reap the benefits when they have no inherit merit? To me, it seems that an initial distribution based on merit would soon lose this quality and no longer be based on meritocracy without a far-reaching government that would severely limit the freedom of citizens. For example, many business owners occasionally hire employees because they have some connection to the person that has nothing to do with merit. Would the government outlaw such transactions that are voluntary on both sides but not based on merit? To me, distribution in D_2 based on something other than merit would be very common. Assuming you want to keep distribution merit-based, the government would need to ban many voluntary actions and redistribute resources frequently.
DeleteHi Josh and Aara! Thank you for your comments- to Josh's points I would like to clarify my post. First, Nozick argues that in an ideal society, justice should be unpatterned and historical. I can see how this is, because as he was arguing in his writings, patterning distribution can lead to injustices. However, I do not believe we can ever achieve Nozick's ideal society because of the point that you brought up Josh, which is that "natural inequalities exist." I believe that distributing on the basis of meritocracy and nepotism is inherently natural and cannot be prevented. Further, to your point, I also agree that patterning the distribution on merit is just because it is based on one's individual ambitions and efforts to succeed.
ReplyDeleteMy blog post was meant to question how and if we can achieve Nozick's "ideal society," when patterning the distribution on merit or nepotism is inherently natural.