Graduate studies at Western
Ethics 87 (2):142-149 (1977)
|Abstract||According to robert nozick's theory of distributive justice, We are forced to choose between a commitment to the kantian principle that no one may be used as a means to the purposes of others and the socialist view that the benefits of land and natural resources should be distributed on the basis of an end-State standard of equity. However, We face no such dilemma. A careful look at nozick's argument reveals that the kantian imperative does not clearly entail the right of individuals to own land and natural resources. Indeed a very plausible application of the imperative is compatible with the doctrine that land and resources are communal property. Therefore, Nozick's theory fails to justify economic distributions produced by a system in which natural resources are privately owned|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Barry Smith & Leo Zaibert (2001). The Metaphysics of Real Estate. Topoi 20 (2):161-172.
A. John Simmons (1995). Historical Rights and Fair Shares. Law and Philosophy 14 (2):149 - 184.
Adrian Bardon (2000). From Nozick to Welfare Rights: Self‐Ownership, Property, and Moral Desert. Critical Review 14 (4):481-501.
Alan Ryan (1992). Book Review: Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State. Jonathan Wolff. [REVIEW] Ethics 103 (1):154-.
B. Andrew Lustig (1991). Natural Law, Property, and Justice: The General Justification of Property in John Locke. Journal of Religious Ethics 19 (1):119 - 149.
Eric Rakowski (1991). Equal Justice. Oxford University Press.
Jeremy Waldron (2005). Nozick and Locke: Filling the Space of Rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):81-110.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads114 ( #6,022 of 737,480 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #9,224 of 737,480 )
How can I increase my downloads?