Compare the social ethics theories of distributive justice and libertarianism. How are they alike? How are they different? Explain your answer

Answer 1

Social ethics theories assert that special obligations arise from the social nature of human beings. John Rawls is a leading proponent of distributive justice. His theory seeks to analyze the type of society that people in a "natural state" would establish if they could not determine in advance whether they would be talented, rich, healthy, or ambitious relative to other members of society. Rawls stresses "equality of opportunity." His theory is premised on justice and the belief that everyone is entitled to a fair share in society, which all must work to guarantee. Libertarians stress market outcomes as the basis for distributing society's rewards. Adherents such as Robert Nozick stress liberty rather than justice as the most important obligation that society owes its members. It is not unjust to a libertarian that some people become wealthy while others have little or nothing. They oppose interference by society in their lives. To a libertarian, it is unjust for society to take the wealth of one citizen in order to distribute it to others who did not earn it. Social ethics theories judge society in moral terms by how it is organized and how it distributes goods and services.