ROBERT NOZICK’S ENTITLEMENT THEORY OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN SOCIETY

Abstract

Distributive justice entails societal attributes that creates equitable and fair distribution of resources among citizens. It can also be seen as fair and morally acceptable resource allocation framework among members of a society. There are in the history of scholarship series of views and positions aimed at providing moral guidance for proper distribution of benefits in the society. These attempts by various scholars constitutes what is popularly known as theories or principles of distributive justice. Among these theories of distributive justice is Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice in holdings, where on libertarian ground, he argues for free market economy, as the only measure that can guaranty the protection of the rights of individuals to self-ownership. For this reason, Nozick sees the minimal state as the most extensive state that can be justified, He argues that the action of state on individual can only be justified when it is meant to protect individuals against harm and fraud. Nozick therefore rejects any form of redistribution or patterned distributive principle, for they are in his view unjust. The thrust of this study is to critically analyse Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice, to highlight its implications for human society. Using analytic method, the study revealed that: Nozick only succeeded in introducing the framework of his entitlement theory, but failed to establish it, and was also too extreme in his defence for individual liberty. However, the enormous value of Nozick’s theory of justice in holdings and individual liberty in human society cannot be over emphasized.