Skip to content
Published on

What Is Justice — Rawls and Nozick

🇰🇷KO🇺🇸EN🇯🇵JA
Split View필사 모드
Authors

Opening: The Dilemma of the One Who Cuts the Cake

Two children quarrel over a single slice of cake. A parent reaches for an old piece of wisdom: "One of you cuts, the other chooses first." Now, how does the child with the knife make the cut? Because she does not know which piece she will end up with, she tries to cut the two halves as evenly as she possibly can. Cut one side too large, and her sibling will simply take that larger side.

Remarkably, hidden inside this simple scene at the kitchen table is one of the greatest thought experiments in twentieth-century political philosophy. "If I did not know which position I would occupy, what rules would we actually agree to?" It is from precisely this question that the American philosopher John Rawls begins his theory of justice.

Let us move to a larger stage. You are about to be born, but you do not yet know who you will be. Whether you will be the child of a wealthy household or a poor one, whether your body will be healthy or burdened with disability, whether you will overflow with talent or be entirely ordinary — none of it has been decided. Now you are given a task: to design, with your own hands, the rules of the society in which everyone will live. Like the child cutting the cake, you cannot help but become careful. If there is any chance that you might land at the very bottom of that society, then you will hope that life at the bottom is not too miserable.

And yet, in the very same era, a colleague raised his hand from the opposite direction. "Wait — who baked that cake in the first place?" This is the counterstrike of Robert Nozick, of the same Harvard University. Nozick asked: Is it really right to judge justice solely by the distribution of outcomes? Where does anyone get the authority to command that what people have justly acquired be divided up all over again?

This essay follows the duel between these two men. One places equality at the heart of justice; the other places liberty. And this old tension remains a living question for us today, as we face widening gaps in wealth. The purpose of this essay is not to settle which side is right. It is rather to lay out both positions as fairly as possible, and to leave the final judgment to you, the reader.

Justice: An Ancient Question

Justice is one of the oldest of all philosophical questions. Going back to ancient Greece, Plato portrayed justice as a condition in which each person holds the share and plays the role that suits them, while Aristotle held that the heart of justice lies in treating "like cases alike, and unlike cases differently." To treat people in proportion — to acknowledge fitting differences while refusing unjust discrimination.

In the modern era the question grows sharper still. How should the wealth and opportunity a society produces be divided among its members? Who deserves what? This is the problem of distributive justice, and it is the stage on which Rawls and Nozick clash. Though the two men belonged to the same era and the same university, they offered nearly opposite answers to this question. To understand their duel properly, we must first look calmly at each of their pictures of the world.

Rawls: Behind the Veil of Ignorance

The Stage of the Original Position

With his monumental 1971 work "A Theory of Justice," John Rawls reawakened a political philosophy that had grown sleepy. The question he sought to answer was vast: What ought the basic principles of a fair society to be? To answer it, he devised a hypothetical situation he called the "original position."

The original position is a kind of imaginary conference room, where people gather to set the rules of society from the ground up. But one special condition governs this room. Every participant wears a "veil of ignorance," so that they know nothing concrete about themselves. They do not know their sex, race, wealth, talents, religion, or social standing — nor even what values and life plans they will come to hold. They possess only general knowledge about how human societies tend to work.

Why is such a strange device necessary? Rawls's insight is clear. People tend to set rules in their own favor. The rich want a society with low taxes; the poor want one with generous redistribution. The healthy are indifferent to medical guarantees, but for the sick those guarantees are a matter of survival. Yet if I do not know which of these I am, I cannot casually choose a rule that tilts toward one side. It is the same logic that keeps the child cutting the cake from cutting it unevenly. By blocking off private interest, the veil of ignorance ensures that no one can slip their own circumstances in to their advantage.

Rawls held that a principle agreed upon under such conditions can, for the first time, properly be called "fair." This is why he named his theory "justice as fairness." Principles of justice gain their legitimacy when they are derived through a fair procedure.

The Two Principles of Justice

So what principles would the people behind the veil agree upon? Rawls argued that they would choose the following two.

First, the principle of equal basic liberties. Every person must equally enjoy basic liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of political participation, and the right to vote — and these liberties cannot be casually traded for anything else. This is the first and most overriding principle. Trading liberty for prosperity is not permitted.

Second, social and economic inequalities are permitted only when they satisfy two conditions. One is "fair equality of opportunity." Good positions and offices must be genuinely open to everyone. Not merely that the door stands formally open, but that anyone with similar talents and motivation can enjoy similar chances regardless of their background. The other is the famous "difference principle."

Rawls's principles are not a flat list; they carry a clear order of priority. Below is a summary of that structure.

First Principle: Equal basic liberties (highest priority)
Second Principle:
  (a) Fair equality of opportunity
  (b) Difference principle — inequality is allowed only when it
      benefits the least advantaged
Priority order: liberty > opportunity > difference

This ordering matters. Rawls did not permit basic liberties to be sacrificed for economic gain. Liberty comes first, then equality of opportunity, and only after that comes the question of inequalities in distribution.

What the Difference Principle Really Means

The difference principle is often misunderstood. Rawls never said that everyone must have exactly the same amount. On the contrary, he permits inequality. But one condition attaches. For an inequality to be justified, it must be arranged so that it brings the greatest benefit to "those placed in the least advantaged position" in society.

Consider an example. Think of an arrangement that pays an outstanding doctor a high reward. This clearly produces inequality. But if that reward draws more capable people into medicine, so that even poor patients end up receiving better care, then this inequality passes the test of the difference principle. By contrast, if some inequality merely makes the rich richer and does nothing for life at the bottom, it is not justified. Rawls's concern was always with the "floor," never the "ceiling." The measure of a society is not how the most fortunate person lives, but how the least fortunate one does.

Why Think First of the Weakest

Beneath the difference principle lies an intriguing logic of choice. Behind the veil of ignorance, if you are a rational person seriously weighing the possibility of landing in society's lowest position, what gamble would you make?

Rawls held that people would choose a strategy of "making the worst case as good as possible." This way of thinking, called "maximin," compares the worst outcomes of each available option and selects the one whose worst case is the least bad. Since you do not know which position you will fall into anyway, it is safer to choose a society in which the worst position is at least bearable.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this logic. Some might say they would accept the risk in exchange for greater average prosperity. We will return to this point later. But Rawls's core claim rests on a moral intuition: that differences in starting line, handed out by luck, should not govern the whole of a person's life. What talents I am born with, what parents I am born to — these are pure chance. Rawls called such products of chance "arbitrary from a moral point of view," and held that society ought to correct, to some degree, for the misfortune of that chance. To credit the entire share gained from inborn luck to the individual as a just possession is, in Rawls's view, morally unpersuasive.

Nozick: Justice Is History

"Who Baked the Cake?"

Three years after Rawls's "A Theory of Justice" appeared, in 1974, his Harvard colleague Robert Nozick struck back head-on with a book titled "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." Nozick's starting point is the opposite of Rawls's. He casts doubt on the very idea of evaluating justice by the "state of distribution" of outcomes.

As Nozick sees it, whether a society is just cannot be judged by looking at the final state of how its wealth happens to be "divided up." Suppose there are two societies with property spread equally across both, but one reached that state through just trade and labor while the other did so through plunder and force. The two by no means enjoy the same justice. What matters is not the "shape of the present distribution" but "the historical process that led to that distribution." We must not look only at how the cake was cut; we must look at who baked the cake and who supplied the ingredients. This is the heart of Nozick's "entitlement theory," his procedural conception of justice.

The Three Principles of Entitlement

Nozick offers three principles for judging just holdings. Briefly summarized, they are as follows.

1. Justice in acquisition : Was the thing first acquired justly,
   when it belonged to no one yet?
2. Justice in transfer    : Was it justly passed on through
   voluntary exchange or gift?
3. Rectification of injustice : Past unjust acquisitions or coerced
   transfers must be set right.

First, justice in acquisition. This is the principle governing how one first comes to hold, justly, something that as yet belonged to no one. Second, justice in transfer. This is the principle governing how something justly held is passed to another through voluntary exchange or gift. Third, the rectification of injustice. This is the principle governing how a wrong is set right if, in the past, there was unjust acquisition or coerced transfer.

What these three principles conclude is simple. If a person has come to hold something through just acquisition and just transfer, then they have a just entitlement to it. And the distribution so formed is just, however unequal its shape may appear. Conversely, however equal a distribution may look, it is not just if injustice crept into the process that produced it.

The Wilt Chamberlain Argument

Nozick's most famous thought experiment is the story of a basketball player. Taking a star athlete of his day as his example, Nozick asks the following.

Suppose we begin from whatever distribution you believe to be most just. It may even be a state of perfect equality, where everyone holds exactly the same. Now people want to watch this basketball star play. Each time they buy a ticket, the spectators voluntarily set aside a small sum and hand it to the player. By the end of a season, the small coins of countless spectators have piled up, and the player holds far more money than anyone else.

So now the original perfect equality has been broken. Nozick asks: Is this new inequality unjust? To say that it is, we would have to block the spectators from voluntarily handing their own money to the player. But who can stop free individuals from spending the money they justly hold on whatever they wish? Nozick's conclusion is this: To keep any particular shape of distribution intact, one must continually intervene in people's voluntary transactions and reverse their results. A patterned principle of distribution, in the end, cannot be sustained without continuous interference with liberty.

Redistribution and Forced Labor

Nozick goes a step further and presses a provocative claim. He says that taxing the fruits of labor and redistributing them resembles, in a certain respect, forced labor. If the state takes a portion of the money I earned by working an hour and hands it to someone else, then, by his logic, this is no different from conscripting an hour of my labor for the benefit of another.

This claim drew much criticism, and Nozick himself is understood to have softened parts of his early position in later years. But the intuition beneath it is powerful: the idea that a person holds a primary right over himself and the fruits of his own labor, and that this right must not be casually violated merely on the grounds that the purpose is good. For Nozick, the individual is a being who must never be treated merely as a means to another's ends. And so he narrows the role of the state to a minimum as well. The state should do no more than protect people from violence, theft, and fraud, and help enforce contracts; the moment it reaches beyond this to redistribute wealth, it begins to violate individual rights. This is his vision of the "minimal state."

Placing the Two Side by Side

Let us now lay out the difference between the two positions at a glance. The table below sets the cores of Rawls and Nozick face to face.

IssueRawlsNozick
Focus of justiceOutcome and structure of distributionProcess and procedure of acquisition
Core valueFairness and equalityIndividual liberty and rights
Signature deviceVeil of ignorance, original positionEntitlement theory, the athlete argument
View of inequalityAllowed only when it helps the weakestAllowed even if unequal, if the process is just
Role of the stateSecuring fairness through redistributionMinimal state, limited to protecting rights
Tax redistributionWhat justice requiresClose to forced labor
Attitude toward luckSociety should correct chance misfortuneWhat is justly gained is yours, even by luck
Signature workA Theory of Justice, 1971Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974

This table reveals that the two men, while using the same word "justice," are painting entirely different pictures. For Rawls, justice is a state in which outcomes are sufficiently fair; for Nozick, justice is a flow in which the process is sufficiently legitimate. One looks down upon society from above and asks how its structure treats the weak; the other stands upon the individual's shoulder and asks whether his rights have been violated.

In the end, the duel between the two is a contest over the priority of values. Rawls speaks of "justice as fairness," Nozick of "justice as liberty." Which is more correct is not a question this essay will answer. But that both intuitions live within us is clear. We are uneasy when the weak are abandoned, and we feel it unjust when what we have justly earned is casually taken away. Perhaps this is why the debate over justice has lasted so long.

Sandel's Critique: A Question for Both

Intriguingly, there is a philosopher who stepped back from the Rawls-Nozick duel and raised doubts about both sides: Michael Sandel of Harvard. His book "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?," drawn from his lectures, has been widely read around the world, and it made a great stir in Korea as well.

Sandel deeply respects Rawls, yet he presses an important critique. As he sees it, the human being standing behind the veil of ignorance is, so to speak, an "unencumbered self" who has cast off all concrete identity. But actual human beings are deeply rooted in family, community, history, and tradition. My values and my responsibilities are hard to think of apart from the community to which I belong. If, in reasoning about justice, we deliberately empty out all that concrete identity, then the principle so derived risks becoming detached from the lives real people actually live.

Sandel also questions Nozick. Can one really say that "my talent is wholly my own"? An outstanding athlete's gift is partly something he honed through effort, but it is also partly something he happened to be born with — and above all, it has value only because there is a society that makes that gift worth something. In a society where basketball was unpopular, the same talent would yield no great reward. So is it really just to credit that reward entirely to the individual? This is the challenge of communitarianism.

Sandel's more fundamental critique targets a premise that Rawls and Nozick share. In reasoning about justice, both men deliberately set aside any judgment about what kind of life people regard as a good life. Rawls's veil of ignorance has people set principles with their values hidden; Nozick's procedural justice likewise holds that whatever people want, a transaction is legitimate so long as it is voluntary. Both men, that is, push aside judgments about "the good" and try to frame only "the right." Sandel argues that justice, in the end, cannot be separated from a community's discussion of the good life, nor from questions of virtue and the common good.

Of course, Rawls's defenders have their reply. In a pluralistic modern society, people hold differing views about the good life, and precisely for that reason the principles of justice should not lean on any particular set of values. The worry is that the moment someone's vision of the good life is made the standard of justice, it can become oppression for those who hold different values. Which side to favor is no easy matter. What is clear is that Sandel's question has widened the stage of the debate over justice considerably.

Pause: Which Side Are You On?

Before the proper summing-up, let us lightly test your intuitions. These are not questions with fixed answers. But your reply to each will mirror back to you which intuition you lean on more.

[ Intuition Check ]

Question 1. Wearing the veil of ignorance, would you readily agree
            to a society where a small few hold more than half
            of all the wealth?

Question 2. Taxing a basketball player who grew rich because
            spectators voluntarily handed him their money — is that
            just redistribution, or a violation of liberty?

Question 3. Are the fruits of my talent and effort wholly my own,
            or partly owed to society and luck?

If, at Question 1, you hesitate to agree readily, then a Rawlsian intuition is alive in you. If, at Question 2, that tax feels like a violation of liberty, then a Nozickian intuition is at work. If, at Question 3, you paused for a moment, then Sandel's question has reached you too.

A Short Review Quiz

This time, let us check whether the content was properly understood. Try answering the five questions below on your own first, then check the solutions beneath them.

[ Theory of Justice Quiz ]

Question 1. What does the person behind the veil of ignorance
            not know about themselves?

Question 2. Under what condition does Rawls's difference principle
            permit inequality?

Question 3. In Nozick's entitlement theory, is the standard for
            judging distributive justice the outcome or the process?

Question 4. What core claim does Nozick's basketball-player
            argument aim to demonstrate?

Question 5. What shared premise of Rawls and Nozick does Michael
            Sandel criticize?

Now to the solutions.

Answer to Question 1. They do not know their sex, race, wealth, talents, or social standing — nor even what values and life plan they will come to hold. They do, however, possess knowledge about the general workings of human society.

Answer to Question 2. The difference principle permits inequality only when it brings the greatest benefit to those placed in the least advantaged position in society. Merely raising the overall average is not enough.

Answer to Question 3. The process. Nozick looks not at the shape of the present distribution but at whether the acquisition and transfer leading to it were just. If the procedure is just, the outcome is just even if unequal.

Answer to Question 4. That so long as people transact voluntarily, any equal distribution will eventually drift into inequality. Therefore, to keep a particular shape of distribution intact, one must endlessly interfere with free transactions — which is a violation of liberty.

Answer to Question 5. The premise that both men set aside, in their reasoning about justice, any judgment of what a good life is. Sandel holds that justice cannot be separated from questions of virtue and the common good.

Applying It to Today's Inequality

This abstract debate does not stay shut inside a bookcase. Many societies today face the reality of widening gaps in wealth. A small few hold a substantial share of all of society's wealth; asset prices rise faster than labor income; and differences in starting line are passed down to the next generation — patterns observed in many countries. Faced with this reality, Rawls and Nozick offer entirely different diagnoses.

Through Rawls's eyes, we must first ask: Does the present inequality benefit those in the least advantaged position? If the gap widens while life at the bottom fails to improve, the difference principle grants this inequality no legitimacy. Here Rawlsian thinking leads to a policy concern with redistribution, with genuine equality of opportunity, and with education and the social safety net.

Through Nozick's eyes, the question changes. How was that wealth formed? If someone's holdings were built up through a long chain of just acquisition and voluntary transaction, then to redistribute them by force merely because the outcome is unequal becomes a violation of rights. But here Nozick's own "rectification of injustice" attaches an important caveat. If unjust coercion, plunder, or unfair institutions crept into the past accumulation of wealth, then that wealth was never just to begin with, and it becomes a subject for rectification. To ask whether actual history was really made up of clean procedures alone is, even within Nozick's framework, by no means a trivial matter.

Let us descend to some more concrete issues.

  • The debate over progressive taxation: Levying higher rates on high earners is an idea that chimes with Rawls's difference principle, while Nozick worries that it is a violation of liberty.
  • The discussion of basic income: Guaranteeing everyone a certain income touches the intuition of thinking first of the weakest, but it collides with the intuition of liberty over how that funding is to be raised.
  • Inheritance and the starting line: If parents' wealth largely governs a child's starting line, how far can Rawls's "fair equality of opportunity" actually be realized?
  • The shadow of meritocracy: The belief that anyone who tries hard can succeed risks concealing the inequality of the starting line, Sandel warns.

Seen this way, the two positions point to different places, yet the questions they put to us are all serious. How much should we value fairness of outcome? At the same time, how much should we respect individual liberty and the share owed to honest effort? And was the process by which that wealth piled up truly just? No position is a cure-all. Rawls's redistribution may, at worst, weaken individual liberty and responsibility, while Nozick's liberty may, at worst, abandon the weak. Perhaps good policy in the real world takes a form somewhere between these questions, one that embraces the insights of both sides together.

Closing: Before the Cake Once More

Let us return to the cake we began with. Rawls says to cut the cake without knowing which piece you will get. Nozick says first look at who baked the cake and who supplied the ingredients. Sandel asks, before all that discussion, in whose kitchen and by whose hands the cake was made, and what kind of table we would even call a good table — and invites us to talk that through together.

What is intriguing is that it is hard to say any one of these three is simply wrong. We all hope the lives of the poor are not miserable, and at the same time we hope that what we honestly worked for is not casually taken away. The yearning toward equality and the yearning toward liberty live together within us. This, surely, is why the debate over justice continues so long and so heatedly.

This essay has not raised any one person's hand. That is deliberate. For nothing is more dangerous, in a question about justice, than receiving the answer ready-made from an external authority. Instead, it has tried to let you hear the voices of two masters and one critic as fairly as possible. Perhaps justice is not a single finished answer, but the very process of endlessly asking and adjusting among these voices. Now it is your turn to put on the veil and set the rules of your own society.

Things to Ponder

First, if you were truly behind the veil of ignorance, would you accept the risk for greater average prosperity, or choose the safe society in which the worst position is at least bearable? What does that choice reveal about you?

Second, is Nozick's basketball-player argument really a powerful argument that renders all redistribution unjust? Or is there a hidden gap in it? If the starting line of a voluntary transaction was already unequal, is that transaction still wholly free?

Third, in our society facing gaps in wealth, which do you think we should ask about first — the fairness of outcomes or the legitimacy of the process? Is there a path that embraces both questions at once?

Fourth, if, as Sandel says, justice cannot be separated from judgments about the good life, then in a pluralistic society, whose good life should we take as the standard? Is such an agreement possible?

Fifth, might the conception of justice I support be a function of the position I happen to occupy in society right now? If I were to put the veil back on, would my thinking change?

References

Discuss on Twitter • View on GitHub