The Proviso. ustice by saying that certain acquisitions ere he is filling in his entitlement theory fj th tating that these acquis sre unjust. What his Proviso is, is a principle s ee jons and transte Annovinoly, he doesn’t give an official explicit statement of which acquisitions and tra He doesn’t just come out and explicitly say “The fells us _ ae nexplicitly makes a bunch of gestures in the general vicintt} instead of just saying exa srinciple is. (This is an example of how nor to write, by the way.) In any case, my best spproximation of his Proviso is: Proviso tells 5 it through transfer), and as an The proviso: if'a person P acquires something (or obtain Jue, then the acquisition | obtaining some person R is made worse off than the baseline val ‘hrough which P obtained the thing was unjust. 's unjust because it makes Y worse off than the Example: X getting all the water sources this is not unjust because it does not make Y But if X gets only some of the water source: chan the baseline value. baseline value to bv Dne question: What is the baseline value? I *think* Nozick wants the g more like: “the of your life in a Lockean state of nature. Or perhaps, he means somethi ife would have right now if there weren't a state”, But I'm not sure really. Perhaps the ba sn't about your quality of life in general, but rather about your access to certain resources f available in a Lockean state of nature. He’s hard to interpret here. Can anyone help me on k have the Provis Another question: why does » One answer: it has something to do with “ownership”. Can we push this answer furt ‘Another answer: He thinks that societies where some are sufficiently destitute due to holdings of others, are unjust societies ~ and he has to somehow makes sense of that v entitlement-theoretic terms instead of the patterned terms in which it more naturally re A question for Nozick: what if everyone owns one of the 10 water holes, and each of them independently decides to give his away to Joe. The new situation violates the proviso. But the like giving away things is not always a “just transfer”, or at least, it is not always a transfer tha areserves the justice of a society. It looks like Nozick has to say that here, But shen, why nots Chamberlain case? Altematively: if he chooses to say justice is preserved in the Chamberlain case, why not then d Proviso and say it is preserved in this water case too? Or, getting at the same point another way: why is the Proviso about whether someone is worse « ina state of nature, as opposed to €.g. whether someone is worse of? 1 egalitarian state? ey would &The Proviso. Here he is filling in his entitlement theory of justice by saying that certain acquisitions (: are unjust. What his Proviso is, is a principle stating that these acquisitions and transfers Annoyingly, he doesn’t give an official explicit statement of which acquisitions and trans He doesn’t just come out and explicitly say “The Proviso tells us are unjust inexplicitly makes a bunch of gestures in the general vicinity, instead of just saying exactl principle is. (This is an example of how not to write, by the way.) In any case, my best fi approximation of his Proviso is: The proviso: if'a person P acquires something (or obtains it through transfer), and as a rest obtaining some person R is made worse off than the baseline value, then the acquisition (or through which P obtained the thing was unjust, xample: X getting all the water sources is unjust because it makes Y worse off than the ba, But if X gets only some of the water sources, this is not unjust because it does not make Y w than the baseline value. One question: What is the baseline value? I *think* Noziek wants the baseline value to be: | of your life in a Lockean state of nature. Or perhaps, he means something more like: “the qui life would have right now if there weren't a state”. But I’m not sure really. Perhaps the baseli isn’t about your quality of life in general, but rather about your access to certain resources that available in a Lockean state of nature. He’s hard to interpret here. Can anyone help me on this Another question: why does Nozick have the Proviso? One answer: it has something to do with “ownership”. Can we push this answer further’ Another answer: He thinks that societies where some are sufficiently destitute due to the holdings of others, are unjust societies ~ and he has to somehow makes sense of that view entitlement-theoretic terms instead of the patterned terms in which it more naturally reside A question for Nozick: what if everyone owns one of the 10 water holes, and each of them independently decides to give his away to Joe. ‘The new situation violates the proviso, But then it like giving away things is not always a “just transfer”, or at least, itis not always a transfer that preserves the justice of a society. It looks like Nozick has to say that here. But then, why not say in Chamberlain case? Alternatively: if he chooses to say justice is preserved in the Chamberlain case, why not then drop tl Proviso and say it is preserved in this water case too? Or, getting at the same point another way: why is the Proviso about whether someone ina state of nature, as opposed to e.g. whether someone is worse off than they would be in some m egalitarian state? ‘These questions aren’t rhetorical. I wonder what his answers welenone tious thicnrmalicon.on vi. FFE, her! tne eet eer re and ought to be. Notice that he acarit Tikes Mauicuiasiied Ook winahiedie ChitThe Proviso, Here he is filling in his entitlement theory of justice by stying that certain acquisitions (and transfers) are unjust. What his Proviso is, is a principle stating thal these acquisitions and transfers are unjust. Annoyingly, he doesn’t give an official explicit statement of which acquisitions and transfers these are. He doesn’t just come out and explicitly say “The Proviso tells us_are unjust”. He inexplicitly makes a bunch of gestures in the general vicinity, instead of just saying exactly what his principle is. (This is an example of how nor to write, by the Way.) In any case, my best first approximation of his Proviso is: ult of this ) The proviso: if person P acquires something (or obtains it through transfer), and as a r obtaining some person R is made worse off than the baseline value, then the acquisition (or transf through which P obtained the thing was unjust Example: X getting all the water sources is unjust because it makes Y worse off than the baseline value, But if X gets only some of the water sources, this is not unjust because it docs not make Y worse of than the baseline value One question: What is the baseline value? I *think* Nozick wants the baseline value to be: the quality of your life in a Lockean state of nature. Or perhaps, he means something more like: “the quality your life would have right now if there weren't a slate”. But I'm not sure really. Perhaps the baseline valu isn’t about your quality of life in general, but rather about your access to certain resources that would be available in a Lockean state of nature. He's hard (o interpret here, Can anyone help me on this? Another question: why does Nozick have the Praviso? One answer: it has something to do with “ownership”. Can we push this answer further? Another answer: He thinks that societies where some are sutficiently destitute due to the holdings of others, are unjust societies — and he has to somehow makes sense of that view in entitlement-theoretic terms instead of the patterned terms in which it more naturally resides. A question for Nozick: what if everyone owns one of the independently decides to give his away to Joe. The new situation violates the proviso. But then it looks like giving avsay things is not alway’ a “just transfer”, orat least, it is not always a transfer that preserves the justice of society. It looks like Nozick has to say that here. Bur then, why not say in the Chamberlain case? 0 water holes, and each of them, Alternatively: if he chooses to say justice is preserved in the Chamberlain case, why not then drop the Proviso and say it is preserved in this water case 100? Or, getting at the same point another way: why is the Proviso about whether someone is worse off than ina state of nature, as opposed to e.g. whether someone is worse off than they would be in some more egalitarian state? These questions aren't rhetorical. I wonder what his answers are and ought to be. Notice that he acknowledges the questions on p. 177, but does not say much about how he wants to answer them.