Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Nozick's entitlement theory holds that holdings are just if they arise from voluntary transfers, regardless of the pattern of distribution that results.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Voluntary transfers starting from unjust initial holdings (theft, colonization, slavery) cannot generate just outcomes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Markets enable coercive dynamics where desperation forces nominally 'voluntary' exchanges that exploit inequality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Ignoring distributional patterns allows extreme inequality that undermines meaningful autonomy for the most disadvantaged.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Voluntary transfers respect individual autonomy by allowing people to dispose of their justly-acquired property as they freely choose.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If initial holdings are just and transfers are voluntary, the resulting distribution inherits justice regardless of final pattern.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Patterns requiring redistribution violate liberty by forbidding mutually beneficial exchanges people would willingly make.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.