Chapter Info (Click Here)
Book No. – 3 (Political Science – Western Political Thought)
Book Name – Western Political Thought (OP Gauba)
What’s Inside the Chapter? (After Subscription)
1. General Introduction
2. Nozick’s Theory of Justice
2.1. Modes of Acquisition
2.2. Principles of Entitlement
2.3. A Critical Appraisal
Note: The first chapter of every book is free.
Access this chapter with any subscription below:
- Half Yearly Plan (All Subject)
- Annual Plan (All Subject)
- Political Science (Single Subject)
- CUET PG + Political Science
- UGC NET + Political Science
Robert Nozick
Chapter – 12
General Introduction
Robert Nozick (1938-2002) was a contemporary American philosopher known for his libertarian work Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), written as a response to John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1971).
Nozick also contributed to decision theory and epistemology.
Like Rawls, Nozick’s methodology is derived from the social contract tradition, especially influenced by John Locke (1632-1704), but unlike Rawls, he does not use elaborate metaphors.
Nozick was educated at Columbia, Princeton, and Oxford, and taught at Harvard University.
He drew on Immanuel Kant’s moral principle that human beings should always be treated as an end-in-themselves, never merely as means.
Nozick held a strong belief in libertarianism, treating the right to property as sacrosanct.
In Anarchy, State and Utopia, Nozick explains the origin of the state by Locke’s method: individuals in the state of nature have rights and form protective associations to safeguard property; the dominant association becomes the state.
He argues that property acquisition or transfer is just only if done without force or fraud; all rights arise from voluntary exchanges.
The state’s role is limited to maintaining property rights, legitimizing a minimal state that does not redistribute wealth among its original clients.
Nozick opposes redistributive justice; inequalities at production should not be corrected at distribution.
He accepts restrictions on monopolizing natural resources (e.g., a single water source in a desert), but not on products of human talent and effort.
For example, a discoverer of a cure for a fatal disease can demand any price, justifying inequalities based on talent and effort.
Nozick’s view assumes wealth and power inequalities are natural outcomes of individual differences and that redistribution to reduce them is unjust.
This perspective reflects liberal individualism but ignores social conditions’ role in producing unequal outcomes and is criticized for not reflecting the realities of capitalism.