Entitlement Theory - Differences From Other Ideals

Differences From Other Ideals

Entitlement theory contrasts sharply with the Principles of Justice in Rawls' A Theory of Justice, which state that each person has an equal claim to basic rights and liberties, and that inequality should only be permitted to the degree that such inequality is "reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage" (Rawls 1999: 53). There is a further proviso that such inequalities are only permissible insofar as there is an equality of opportunity to benefit from these inequalities . Nozick instead argues that people who have or produce certain things have rights over them: "on an entitlement view, are not .. separate questions .. things come into the world already attached to people having entitlements over them" (Nozick 1974:160). Nozick believes that unjustly taking someone's holdings violates their rights. "Holdings to which .. people are entitled may not be seized, even to provide equality of opportunity for others" (Nozick 1974:235). Thus, a system which works to reduce the rightfully earned holdings of some so that they can be equally distributed to others is immoral.

"The major objection to speaking of everyone's having a right to various things such as equality of opportunity, life, and so on, and enforcing this right, is that these 'rights' require a substructure of things and materials and actions; and other people may have rights and entitlements over these. No one has a right to something whose realization requires certain uses of things and activities that other people have rights and entitlements over" (Nozick 1974:238).

Entitlement theory also contrasts with the Marxist analysis that inequality should be the goal, and that private ownership of the means of production necessarily create the conditions of the need for entitlements to create a system of social justice.