Abstract:
Abstract: Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice has its major attempts to defend the
institution of private property and to criticize the redistributive measures on the part of
government. Nozick frowns at Rawls’ approach and the approach of welfare economics,
which focused on evaluating only current time-slices of a distribution with no concern about
the procedural aspects of justice. His notion of distributive justice has its anchorage on the
account of what and how a given person is entitled to in virtue of what he has acquired and
earned. While Rawls, whose position seems incompatible with that of Nozick holds a notion
of justice on the account of the equality of the claims of each person in respect of basic needs
and of the means to meet such needs. Nozick’s theory is a reaction against Rawls’ notion of
distributive justice which he terms patterned, and of which he feels if upheld would
consistently interfere with individual’s rights. This paper therefore argues that contrary to
what Robert Nozick seems to suggest we do not see his theory as all satisfying nor any
alternative, rather we are convinced that the inherent merits of his theory would suitably
complement other patterned theories of distributive justice. This paper employed the
expository method as well as critical analysis and prescriptive methods.
