TERM PAPER

Monsoon/ Second semester, CPS

What is the difference between historical and patterned theories of justice? Which type of
theory would you advocate and why?

Submitted by: Shubhi Yadav

Registration number: 223510127424
Enrolment number: 22/62/HP/013
Submitted to: Dr. Shefali Jha
ABSTRACT: The distinction between historical and patterned views of justice is examined in this term
paper. In order to distribute things according to what people are owed, historical conceptions of
justice focus on previous deeds and occurrences. On the other hand, certain pattern or structure of
distribution, such as an equitable or need-based distribution, is prioritised by patterned theories. In
order to determine which strategy is most effective for building a just and equitable society, this term
paper will examine the advantages and disadvantages of each theory. This paper seeks to offer a
greater comprehension of the philosophical foundations of justice and its function in society.

INTRODUCTION: The most extensive form of government that can be justified is the minimal state.
This means that any government that is more extensive than the minimal state is violating people's
rights. However, some people believe that a more extensive government is necessary to achieve
distributive justice. Distributive justice refers to the idea that resources should be distributed fairly
among people.

The term "distribution" is not neutral because it implies that there is some process or mechanism
that gives out resources according to some principle or criterion. In a free society, however, resources
are not distributed in this way. People control different resources, and new holdings arise out of
voluntary exchanges and actions. Therefore, it's is better to talk about people's holdings rather than
distribution. a principle of justice in holdings should describe what justice requires about people's
holding.

ENTITLEMENT THEORY OF JUSTICE: The entitlement theory, as proposed by philosopher Robert

Nozick in his book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," discusses the subject of justice in holdings. This
subject consists of three major topics, which are the original acquisition of holdings, the transfer of
holdings from one person to another, and the rectification of injustice in holdings.

The principle of justice in acquisition concerns how unheld things may come to be held, the process
or processes by which they may come to be held, and the things that may come to be held by these
processes. The principle of justice in transfer concerns the processes by which a person may transfer
holdings to another, including voluntary exchange, gift, fraud, and conventional details fixed upon in
a given society. The principle also includes how a person may divest themselves of a holding, passing
it into an unheld state.

Nozick proposes an inductive definition that exhaustively covers the subject of justice in holdings if
the world were wholly just. According to the definition, a person who acquires a holding in
accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding. A person who
acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled
to the holding, is also entitled to the holding. No one is entitled to a holding except by repeated
applications of these principles.

The complete principle of distributive justice states that a distribution is just if everyone is entitled
to the holdings they possess under the distribution, which arises from a just distribution by
legitimate means. However, not all situations adhere to these principles, and past injustices must be
rectified. This raises the question of what should be done to correct past injustices and the
obligations of those who performed the injustices to those who were negatively affected by them.
HISTORICAL THEORIES OF JUSTICE: The entitlement theory of justice in distribution is a historical
principle that states whether a distribution is just depends upon how it came about. It holds that
past circumstances or actions of people can create differential entitlements or differential deserts to
things. An injustice can be worked by moving from one distribution to another in ways that violate
the entitlements of people. In contrast, current time-slice principles of justice are end-result or
end-state principles that hold that the justice of a distribution is determined by how things are
distributed at the present time, as judged by some structural principle of just distribution. These
principles look only to the structure of the resulting set of holdings and do not take into account how
holdings are produced and come to exist.

For example, a utilitarian who judges between any two distributions by seeing which has the greater
sum of utility would hold a current time-slice principle of justice. Welfare economics is the theory of
current time-slice principles of justice. Most people do not accept current time-slice principles as
constituting the whole story about distributive shares. They believe it is relevant in assessing the
justice of a situation to consider not only the distribution it embodies but also how that distribution
came about. This is where historical principles of justice come into play.

PATTERNED THEORIES OF JUSTICE: Historical principles of justice are entitlement principles based on
past actions creating differential entitlements. They include principles of justice in acquisition,
transfer, and rectification of past injustices. The entitlement principles are based on voluntary actions
or actions that people are responsible for. Patterned principles of distributive justice are principles
that specify a natural dimension or combination of dimensions along which a distribution should
vary. These dimensions can be moral merit, usefulness to society, need, or any other natural
dimension. A distribution is patterned if it accords with some patterned principle. The distribution in
a society may be composed of several patterned distributions, which may vary across different
sectors of the society. A distribution can be just even if it is not patterned. Different patterns can
operate in different proportions across a society, and a distribution composed of a small number of
patterned distributions can also be patterned. The patterned approach is based on a set pattern of
distribution, such as needs, marginal product, or moral merit, while the entitlement approach is not
patterned and is based on the idea of entitlement to property rights. It also considers the views of
F.A. Hayek, who argues that we cannot distribute according to moral merit because we cannot know
enough about each person's situation, and that attempts to impose a pattern of distribution on
society are objectionable. Hayek suggests a pattern of distribution based on the perceived benefits
given to others in a free capitalist society, but this is only one strand of a system of entitlements that
includes inheritance, gifts, and charity.

HOW LIBERTY UPSETS PATTERNS: Nozick argues that the distribution of goods in a free market will
inevitably upset any particular pattern of distribution. He suggests that efforts to enforce a particular
pattern of distribution through government intervention will necessarily violate individual rights to
freedom and property. Nozick discusses how the entitlement theory of justice affects patterns of
distribution. Nozick uses the example of Wilt Chamberlain, a popular basketball player who earns
more money than other players, to illustrate how voluntary exchanges upset patterns of distribution
that conform to other theories of distributive justice. Nozick argues that if people are entitled to the
resources they hold, and they voluntarily exchange them with others, there is no basis for third
parties to complain about the resulting distribution. Nozick also argues that in a socialist society,
where people's needs are satisfied, people may still have reasons to work overtime or start small
factories to satisfy other desires, and that the resulting inequalities should not be forbidden.

SEN’S ARGUMENT: Amartya Sen's argument centers around the idea that individual rights should not
be seen as a binary choice between two alternatives in a social ordering. For example, in a
democratic society, the right to vote is not simply a choice between two candidates, but rather a
fundamental right that should be exercised as each individual chooses. This means that social choice
must take place within the constraints of how people choose to exercise their individual rights.
Furthermore, Sen argues that if any patterned distribution of holdings is considered legitimate, it
must be subject to social choice and constrained by the way individuals choose to exercise their
rights. In other words, social choice is not simply a matter of choosing between different patterns of
distribution, but rather a process of negotiating and constraining the choices that individuals make in
exercising their rights. Overall, Sen's argument emphasizes the importance of recognizing the
complexity and interdependence of individual rights in a social ordering, and the need to view social
choice as a dynamic and ongoing process of negotiation and constraint.

REDISTRIBUTION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS: Patterned principles of distributive justice are a way of
determining who is entitled to receive resources based on certain criteria, with the goal of achieving
a specific distributional pattern. However, these principles do not recognise people's right to choose
what to do with what they have or to give to others, and they ignore the rights of producers. Since it
is unlikely that any actual set of holdings will fit a given pattern, redistributive activities are needed
to achieve the desired distribution. However, these activities can violate people's rights and have
implications that need to be carefully considered. Overall, the issue of distributive justice raises
questions about the role of government in regulating economic activity and the relationship between
individuals, families, and society. It is important to consider multiple perspectives when approaching
this complex problem.

Some people believe that taxing earnings from labor is similar to forced labor because it forces
someone to work for the benefit of others. Others disagree, arguing that a tax system that allows
people to choose how they earn their income is not the same as forcing them to work a specific
activity. However, both views are flawed because taxation involves intentional intervention, limiting
people's alternatives, and threatening force to limit their options. A tax system that seizes a person's
goods to serve the needy is not different from one that seizes some of a man's leisure for the same
purpose. The preference for certain goods or services is no different from the preference for leisure,
and both are equally important to a person's happiness. The distinction between a person who earns
money for material goods and services and one who does not is arbitrary and irrelevant in the
context of forced labor.

End-state principles of distributive justice fail to distinguish between sources of income and are
based on particular views about the legitimacy of profits, interest, and so on. Property rights are the
central core of the notion of a property right in X, relative to which other parts of the notion are to
be explained. The right to determine what shall be done with X helps us to understand why earlier
theorists spoke of people as having property in themselves and their labor.

Historical theories of justice are based on the idea that what is just is based on historical
entitlement. This means that individuals are entitled to what they have acquired through their own
labor or through voluntary exchange, and that any attempt to redistribute resources through taxation
or other means is unjust.

Patterned theories of justice, on the other hand, argue that justice is based on achieving a certain
pattern of distribution of resources that is fair for all members of society. These theories prioritize
the well-being of the least advantaged members of society and call for a redistribution of resources
to achieve greater equality.

Both of these approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and which one is better depends on
one's values and priorities.

Historical theories of justice emphasize individual freedom and responsibility, but may lead to
extreme levels of inequality. Patterned theories of justice prioritize fairness and equality, but may not
account for differences in individual abilities and efforts. Ultimately, creating a just and equitable
society may require finding a balance between these two approaches From my perspective, historical
theory of justice is more appropriate as it has some adavantages . It protects individual rights
,Nozick's theory emphasizes the importance of protecting individual rights and freedoms, including
property rights, and argues that the government's role is to protect these rights.

It emphasizes justice in the process, Nozick's theory places a significant emphasis on justice in the
process of resource distribution, such as voluntary exchanges or labor market transactions, and
argues that a distribution of resources is just if it results from a fair process.

It avoids coercion, Nozick's theory promotes the idea of voluntary exchanges and transactions, and
argues that individuals should be free to make their own choices and pursue their own goals without
coercion or interference from the government.

It promotes economic efficiency, Nozick's theory encourages economic efficiency by allowing

individuals to pursue their own goals and ambitions without government interference. This can lead
to greater innovation, productivity, and economic growth.

It respects individual differences, Nozick's theory recognizes that individuals have different abilities,
interests, and preferences, and argues that a just distribution of resources should take into account
these individual differences and allow individuals to pursue their own goals and ambitions.

Nozick's theory has been influential in contemporary debates about the role of government in
society and the protection of individual rights and freedoms, particularly in the context of economic
and political systems. However, like any theory, it has also faced criticism and is not without its
limitations and potential drawbacks.

REFERENCE:

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia