Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:33:46.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Entitlement Theories of Justice: From Nozick to Roemer and Beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Robert J. van der Veen  and
Philippe Van Parijs
Robert J. van der Veen
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam and Belgian National Science Foundation
Philippe Van Parijs
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam and Belgian National Science Foundation
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick contrasts entitlement theories of justice and “traditional” theories such as Rawls', utilitarianism or egalitarianism, and advocates the former against the latter. What exactly is an entitlement theory (or conception or principle) of justice? Nozick's book offers two distinct characterizations. On the one hand, he explicitly describes “the general outlines of the entitlement theory” as maintaining “that the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer, or by the principle of rectification of injustice (as specified by the first two principles of just acquisition and transfer)” (Nozick, 1974, p. 153). On the other hand, his famous “Wilt Chamberlain” argument against alternative theories is first said to apply to (all) “non-entitlement conceptions” (p. 160), and later to any “end-state principle or distributional patterned principle of justice” (p. 163) — which amounts to an implicit characterization of an entitlement conception (theory, principle) as a conception of justice which is neither end-state nor patterned.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , April 1985 , pp. 69 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cohen, Gerald A. 1984. “Self-ownership, world ownership and equality.” University College, London, unpublished.Google Scholar
Honoré, Anthony M. 1961. “Ownership.” In Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, edited by Guest, A. G., pp. 108–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirzner, Israel M. 1978. “Entrepreneurship, entitlement and economic justice.” In Reading Nozick, edited by Paul, Jeffrey, pp. 383–411. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1981.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, John E. 1982. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, John E. 1983. “Are socialist ethics consistent with efficiency?” The Philosophical Forum 14:369–388.Google Scholar
Roemer, John E. 1984. “Equality of talent.” University of California, Davis: Department of Economics, Working paper No. 239.Google Scholar
Rothbard, Murray N. 1982. The Ethics of Liberty. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, Hillel. 1977. “Justice and entitlement.” In Reading Nozick, edited by Paul, Jeffrey, pp. 380–382, Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1981.Google Scholar
Steiner, Hillel. 1981. “Liberty and equality.” Political Studies 29:555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Veen, Robert J. 1978. “Property, exploitation and justice. An inquiry into their relationship in the work of Nozick, Rawls and Marx.” Acta Politica 13:433–465.Google Scholar
van der Veen, Robert J. 1982. “A critique of John Roemer's general theory of exploitation and class.” University of Amsterdam, unpublished.Google Scholar
Van Parijs, Philippe. 1982. “Theories of exploitation.” Université Catholique de Louvain: Institut des Sciences Economiques, Working papers No. 8212–8213.Google Scholar
Van Parijs, Philippe. 1983. “Nozick and Marxism: Socialist responses to the libertarian challenge.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 146:337–362.Google Scholar
Van Parijs, Philippe. 1984. “Les libertariens: Nouvelle droite ou nouvelle gauche?” La Revue Nouvelle 79:257–265.Google Scholar