The Instigator
sophisticatedhonesty
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Noumena
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points

In matters of justice, John Rawls' Difference Principle ought to be preferred over Robert Nozick's

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Noumena
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,461 times Debate No: 29213
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

sophisticatedhonesty

Con

I dont know
????
Noumena

Pro

I accept. Due to Con's lack of definitions provided in R1 I'll elect to do so here.


===Definitions===


Difference Principle. "The difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society."[1]


Con failed to explain what principle's of Nozicks he would be defending in this debate. However, since the debate is comparative in nature (evinced by the resolution), I take it that he is defending Nozick's counter to Rawls' theory. Nozick countered this with what he called the "entitlement theory of justice".


Entitlement Theory. Stated simply, the theory states that "any distribution of “holdings,” as he calls them, no matter how unequal, is just if (and only if) it arises from a just distribution through legitimate means. One legitimate means is the appropriation of something that is unowned in circumstances where the acquisition would not disadvantage others. A second means is the voluntary transfer of ownership of holdings to someone else. A third means is the rectification of past injustices in the acquisition or transfer of holdings. According to Nozick, anyone who acquired what he has through these means is morally entitled to it. Thus the “entitlement” theory of justice states that the distribution of holdings in a society is just if (and only if) everyone in that society is entitled to what he has."[2]


The phrase "matters of justice" in the scope of the resolution seems to simply mean that Rawls' preferred theory is more "just" than Nozick's. This means that this term can't be defined rigidly without necessitating the outcome of the debate from the outlet.


===Argument===


Rawls argues from a modified social contract theory. He does this by reference to a hypothetical situation in which members of a perspective society reason behind a "veil of ignorance" in which they have no knowledge of what their socio-economic standing would be in society. He reasoned that behind this veil (what Rawls referred to as the "original position"), people would rationally opt for his difference principle (as well as the other tenets of his political philosophy- though those are irrelevant here given the scope of the resolution).


The reasoning actually employed to bridge the "original position" with the "difference principle" lies in risk-minimization. Prior to knowing what one's socio-economic status would be in our perspective society, we would be better off with a more egalitarian social framework than is allowed for by Nozick's entitlement theory. In the original position we are given a choice between several outcomes. On the one hand we have the entitlement theory with results empirically derived from one's aptitudes in that society. But since one has no knowledge of what those aptitudes would be, Rawls argues, one would be more rationally off choosing the difference principle.


===Sources===


[1] http://www.politicalphilosophy.info...
[2] http://www.britannica.com...
Debate Round No. 1
sophisticatedhonesty

Con

well i am a beginner in this so i am looking to grasph as mush knowledge as possible
Noumena

Pro

Con hasn't provided a counter-argument so we can assume my own arguments were conceded (also note that new arguments in the last round are bad conduct). At the very least I have no defene to counter here.

On a side note Con, if you're looking to lean, a dialectical method is pretty much assumed in this format. Posting reactions, counters, problems, etc. along with a defense of what you take to be the right position would better faccilitate learning about the subject then simply listening to me. If that was your only purpose in making this debate, I'd say you chose the wrong format.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
sophisticatedhonesty

Con

I'm fine with my error but i still got a response thank you very much
Noumena

Pro

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Noumena 3 years ago
Noumena
You say you understand the points of both sides but you talk like someone who's never even examined anarchist/libertarian legal-political theory. It's not yer fault of course just don't pretend to know what yer talking about :/
Posted by jfree 3 years ago
jfree
Nozick states that any redistributive properties are wrong. Thus not allowing for taxation to occur equalling no funding for public school. Nothing funded by taxation (army, police, etc...). Our security goes out the window.
(just arguing for the sake of it... i realize points of both sides lol)
Posted by Noumena 3 years ago
Noumena
This is common knowledge. The negation of State-funded activities breeds a need to explain (or at least show the possibility of) privately funded ones. Yer just looking at one aspect of libertarianism and charging it with not answering the second, even though that's not the subject matter here at all.
Posted by jfree 3 years ago
jfree
As for the Wilt Chamberlain analogy, Wilt Chamberlain went to a public school, recieved a public education and learned to play basketball there. He would have been unable to attend a public school without Rawls theory. Nozick does not believe in any forced redistributive measures, therefore not allowing any taxation to occur, in turn leading to no public education.
Posted by KnightOfShadows 3 years ago
KnightOfShadows
To this resolved, it is hard to pick between Rawls and Nozick, but to debate this case, one must throw away morals and look at it with a philosophical view; but between these two radicals is where a ration person lies
Posted by Noumena 4 years ago
Noumena
Tbh I think Rawls' argument is complete bunk. It unjustifiably universalizes an arbitrary standard of risk management.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Look at con trying to get free arguments for the UIL LD topic. Very impressive.
Posted by Noumena 4 years ago
Noumena
I'd like to do one (preferably on the side of Nozick- though I profess ignorance as to his arguments besides the Chamberlain hypothetical) at some point in the future.
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 4 years ago
DudeWithoutTheE
Rawls vs Nozick in the abstract is potentially an awesome debate, sadly not this one though.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
sophisticatedhonestyNoumenaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO was quite informative, had good arguments (particularly from the game theory perspective), much better S&G, and used reliable sources. CON failed all points as he presented no argument.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
sophisticatedhonestyNoumenaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I second Deadlykris and thus award points similarly.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
sophisticatedhonestyNoumenaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't conduct a debate. Con loses the "conduct" vote. Semantics, perhaps; but it seems that he came here to have a homework question answered rather than to debate the issue. Con's grammar was noticeably bad; Pro's was not. This vote goes to Pro. Con made no arguments. This vote goes to Pro. Con had no sources (since he had no arguments). This vote goes to Pro. This is an issue with which I am unfamiliar and have not formed an opinion, so the first two votes are a tie.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
sophisticatedhonestyNoumenaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: And so begins the season of debate kids making pointless debates so that they an steal cases from people online. Sorry you wasted a debate Noumena. :(
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
sophisticatedhonestyNoumenaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
sophisticatedhonestyNoumenaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one that provided a case.