Throughout the symposium, we often
discussed Nozick's theory of entitlement which states that one is
entitled to anything that is justly obtained. While this theory
covers three different principles regarding free market exchanges, it
does not necessarily cover the heavily discussed topic of
inheritance. According to Nozick this theory is completely
justifiable considering the money that the children will obtain was
justly earned and is justly being transferred from one person to the
other. Many will argue that this situation could apply to a
meritocracy, however, the children are not earning this inheritance
based on their individual hard work or talents which leads to me not
believe in the idea that the Wilt Chamberlain example could be used
in a meritocracy. This example can also be argued by Marx in regards to his idea of an egalitarian society. In Marx's egalitarian society it is said that people
should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals,
in some respect. In such a society, Nozick's Theory of Entitlement
could not be applied because the end product will inevitably become
unequal. However, can it be seen in each kind of society that there
will always be some form of inequalities? Would such inequalities be
considered unjust in either a meritocracy or egalitarian?
You're right in saying that inequalities will exist in any kind of society, even in Marx's egalitarian society. It's impossible to have a perfect society where everything is completely equal and there are not any socioeconomic inequalities. The best someone like Marx could do to create a communistic society is to eliminate as much of them as possible, but the flip side of that is that eventually some form of inequality will manifest itself. Maybe not in a socioeconomic fashion, but an inequality nonetheless
ReplyDelete