The Original Position and Nozick

            In class this week, we have discussed two prominent philosophers: John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Rawls is predominantly known for his Original Position argument. This argument is an interesting way to examine philosophical concepts, and it will be useful to apply it to examine Nozick’s Entitlement Theories.

            To begin, would the people in the Original Position behind the veil of ignorance agree with Nozick’s ideas of a just entitlement? The answer I believe they would agree to is that it is not a just system, mainly because it permits inequalities that do not benefit the least advantaged in society. This raises the question, though, of which of Nozick’s three criterions is the unjust one. I believe the people in the original position would say that his principles are faultless, and that it is instead the government that has set them up that is the problem. What, then, could they propose to modify the government so that this situation would be remedied? Well, to first examine this question, it will be helpful to use the cancer curing pill discussed today in class. In this case they would say that it is to the advantage of all if the pills (presumed to be at least somewhat scarce) are only sold to those who could best afford them. One major question with this though is whether or not it is before or after those in the original position had already formulated their basic governing principles. If they had not, then they would probably answer using the advantage of all, but could even they give an answer if they had already set up the governing principles?

            For myself, I wonder if they would not use a bit of utilitarian philosophy to say that the greater good demands that the pills be available for the general public. They might say something like the government should take possession (possibly with financial recompense) of the pills as the pills could be construed as a basic need of life. What do you all think? I confess I find it very difficult to imagine what those in the Original Position would say, but do you all think I have adequately represented their thoughts?