Ethics 87 (2):142-149 (1977)
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Justice and Property: On the Institutional Thesis Concerning Property.Christopher Bertram - manuscript
Natural Law, Property, and Justice: The General Justification of Property in John Locke.B. Andrew Lustig - 1991 - Journal of Religious Ethics 19 (1):119 - 149.
Book Review: Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State. Jonathan Wolff. [REVIEW]Alan Ryan - 1992 - Ethics 103 (1):154-.
From Nozick to Welfare Rights: Self‐Ownership, Property, and Moral Desert.Adrian Bardon - 2000 - Critical Review 14 (4):481-501.
Distributive Justice and Free Market Economics: A Eudaimonistic Perspective.Michael Reber - 2010 - Libertarian Papers 2.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads162 ( #27,599 of 2,153,858 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #184,516 of 2,153,858 )
How can I increase my downloads?