1- historical theory of justice ( an individual holds p justly if and only if there's a chain back to the original acquisition of from nature with no incorrect injustices ) seems a theory of justice about holdings, is not that a limitation of that theory of justice, given that it's a theory of justice: for instance, suppose that john says t to marry, is john's saying just ? Or justice concerns only holdings ?
I argue that the flute example isn't evident. Why should the best flute player get the flute? Because he would serve best the supposed needs of others, namely those people who enjoy listening to a flute being played. This makes the flute player a means for the wellbeing of others. You could as well argue that the flute should be given to whoever enjoys playing the flute the most, thus putting the flute player not in the position of means but of the purpose. I think Immanuel Kant would distribute the flute to the one who gets the most out of playing flute for himself, not to the best entertainer ...
The newer version of this lecture is horribly filmed - can’t see the slides, and it’s from a weird angle. And comments are disabled! So the 4 year old versions are much better...
I think Nozick's theory is wrong because it doesn't really acount for luck proparly, and every society that would be organized by it would be a Tiherocracy, the rule of the lucky.
Well, the distribution would depend on talent, skill, character, energy, work, wisdom, preferences, and many other things, in addition to luck. Nozick's view would be that there would be no way to determine how much of the distribution depended on luck as opposed to other factors, even if it were desirable to eliminate or reduce luck's contribution.
The luck factor can't be ruled out in other systems too, meritocratic systems would have this as people may have different skills to different degrees from birth. In Rawlsian or Roussean theories, luck is still present as the family you're born into work in varying degrees. And main focus of Nozickian theory is not luck, it's about something's being just. If luck was the main point, I think your objection would be good.
The use of historicity in Nozick skates awfully close to Marx (and a fair criticism of Rawls is his ahistoricity )- but then his definition of justice as being grounded in "owning ourselves" ineluctably forces him away from egalitarianism. Interesting. I think that the use of standards is consistent with a truly scientific worldview. Luck is no way ground justice.
Nozick never considers luck, he simply considers the giver equal to the receiver of a good. Granted you may see Paris Hilton as "lucky" because she inherits money, but surely her family members earned that money in a just manner when others in society were presumably convinced to give them goods. In this example, people chose to stay in Hilton hotels, and regardless of the reason, it would be unjust to tell Paris' father that he can't give his fortune to Paris
Nozick could also not be further from Marx in their understanding of distributive justice. Marx utilizes a strict pattern (from each according to ability, to each according to need) while Nozick rejects patterns completely.
It must be strange knowing that all the students are fairly rich to afford college. I can't imagine how imbalanced this is. You only get perspectives from a privileged position.
Good lecture, objective and the prof has a personality. i would not fall asleep in his class
1- historical theory of justice ( an individual holds p justly if and only if there's a chain back to the original acquisition of from nature with no incorrect injustices ) seems a theory of justice about holdings, is not that a limitation of that theory of justice, given that it's a theory of justice: for instance, suppose that john says t to marry, is john's saying just ?
Or justice concerns only holdings ?
Distribution of justice does not work so well when Tony Soprano puts out a contract on you.
Great lecture!! I go to college and come here for the lectures. RUclips is amazing, you can educate yourself on this platform.
Excellent lecture! Really engaging and entertaining. What a great professor.
a spectator of a texas rangers game died on July 8th 2011
I love the baseball example; it really let's Nozick's theory come to life!
Nice to see issues of justice addressed.
thats amazing man , cheers from brazil and please keep the good work
Thank you for uploading this video! Very easy explained and good to remember :) Greetings from Germany. Rosa
somone invent a technology which can filter out the sqeaky chair noises
And this is after I went around the room one Friday with a can of WD-40! Those chairs drove me crazy.
It must be very irritating because it is listening.
It ended too soon, never got to hear the end of the lecture. Do you have the rest professor?
Thank you professor!
As always, thank you! :)
I thought I recognized the shirt.
If only he included the matching surpluses from the private and foreign sector...
I argue that the flute example isn't evident.
Why should the best flute player get the flute? Because he would serve best the supposed needs of others, namely those people who enjoy listening to a flute being played. This makes the flute player a means for the wellbeing of others.
You could as well argue that the flute should be given to whoever enjoys playing the flute the most, thus putting the flute player not in the position of means but of the purpose.
I think Immanuel Kant would distribute the flute to the one who gets the most out of playing flute for himself, not to the best entertainer ...
The newer version of this lecture is horribly filmed - can’t see the slides, and it’s from a weird angle. And comments are disabled! So the 4 year old versions are much better...
I think Nozick's theory is wrong because it doesn't really acount for luck proparly, and every society that would be organized by it would be a Tiherocracy, the rule of the lucky.
Well, the distribution would depend on talent, skill, character, energy, work, wisdom, preferences, and many other things, in addition to luck. Nozick's view would be that there would be no way to determine how much of the distribution depended on luck as opposed to other factors, even if it were desirable to eliminate or reduce luck's contribution.
The luck factor can't be ruled out in other systems too, meritocratic systems would have this as people may have different skills to different degrees from birth. In Rawlsian or Roussean theories, luck is still present as the family you're born into work in varying degrees. And main focus of Nozickian theory is not luck, it's about something's being just. If luck was the main point, I think your objection would be good.
The use of historicity in Nozick skates awfully close to Marx (and a fair criticism of Rawls is his ahistoricity )- but then his definition of justice as being grounded in "owning ourselves" ineluctably forces him away from egalitarianism. Interesting. I think that the use of standards is consistent with a truly scientific worldview. Luck is no way ground justice.
Nozick never considers luck, he simply considers the giver equal to the receiver of a good. Granted you may see Paris Hilton as "lucky" because she inherits money, but surely her family members earned that money in a just manner when others in society were presumably convinced to give them goods. In this example, people chose to stay in Hilton hotels, and regardless of the reason, it would be unjust to tell Paris' father that he can't give his fortune to Paris
Nozick could also not be further from Marx in their understanding of distributive justice. Marx utilizes a strict pattern (from each according to ability, to each according to need) while Nozick rejects patterns completely.
Dislike for giving that dude an F. Some of us work full time while being enrolled full-time, all while doing other stuff too ;)
It must be strange knowing that all the students are fairly rich to afford college. I can't imagine how imbalanced this is. You only get perspectives from a privileged position.
poor kids go to University also. There are thousands of private and public scholarships
yet clearly, not young enough