Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
There is a dispute between welfare liberals and libertarians about whether redistribution of wealth is a rights violation. Welfare liberals believe that a state should redistribute income and wealth. In contrast, libertarians think redistribution is an intervention and a rights violation to the people who earn money in a free market by their inheritance or gifts. In the debate between Rawls and Nozick, there are two main disagreements about the liberty of whom and to what extent natural talents should be considered a shared asset by a state. MacIntyre thinks that Rawls and Nozick’s moral debate is meaningless since there is conceptual incommensurability of the rival arguments in it. His resolution offers a virtue ethics perspective to be a reconciliation, which fails to provide a universal moral principle in a multicultural world. However, a new way to understand the concept of labor seems to give a justificatory argument for redistribution and welfare state.
Highlights
There is a dispute between welfare liberals and libertarians about whether redistribution of wealth is a rights violation
Welfare liberals think that a state should redistribute income and wealth
I think Nozick’s wrong interpretation of labor and possession leads to his misunderstanding about which liberty all individuals are allowed to have. Another understanding of labor and entitlement can make the opinion that the right to liberty leads to the right to equality clearer
Summary
There is a dispute between welfare liberals and libertarians about whether redistribution of wealth is a rights violation. Libertarians think redistribution is an intervention and a rights violation to the people who earn money in a free market by their inheritance or gifts. Both sides put forward their ideas for how to construct a fair society to guarantee citizens’ rights. Nozick and Rawls both want to design a just society in which individuals participating in social exchanges would be treated fairly Their disagreement, is whether the state should redistribute the talents of individuals as resources and services to others. My strategy to support welfare liberals is to examine whether Nozick’s critique of Rawls is successful and point out his theory’s flaw, try to resolve the dispute of libertarians and welfare liberals and defend the proposition that individuals deserve their natural qualifications under a specific moral constraint
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
