Reference no: EM132516787

At a particular moment in time, a particular society's wealth is distributed very unevenly, with some individuals controlling ten times the amount of wealth as the least wealthy individuals. How would Nozick and Rawls assess the society in terms of justice?

a) Nozick would say that the society is just, because the more talented deserve greater rewards. Rawls would say that the society is unjust, because the difference principle condemns all economic inequality.

b) Nozick would say that the society is just, because the market demands a certain amount of economic inequality. Rawls would say that the society is just because inequalities give citizens incentive to work hard and to try to become one of the wealthy members of society.

c) Nozick would say that it is impossible to tell whether the society is just without knowing how the inequalities came about. Rawls would say that it is possible to tell whether the society is just, and that it is unjust, because the di erence principle condemns all economic inequality.

d) Nozick would say that it is impossible to tell whether the society is just without knowing whether the economic goods were acquired in accordance with the  principles of justice in acquisition (initial holdings) and justice in transfer (free market). Rawls would say that whether the society is just depends upon whether the inequalities are working to the advantage of the least advantaged as constrained by principles guaranteeing fair equal opportunity and equal liberties.

e) Nozick would say that the society is not just, because extreme economic inequality interferes with fair equality of opportunity. Rawls would say that whether society is just depends upon whether members of the least advantaged group are able to live a decent life.