76bisTHE NEGATIVE ARGUMENT - Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick

 76bisTHE NEGATIVE ARGUMENT - Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick - dirittoemerito larazionalitàdeifantasmi

THE NEGATIVE ARGUMENTRead more at location 4409

Note: 76@@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit

we describe people as entitled to their natural assets even if it’s not the case that they can be said to deserve them,Read more at location 4437

Note: NON MERITARE UN TALENTO NN SIGNIFICA NN AVERE IL DIRITTO DI SFRUTTARLO Edit

with “are entitled to” replacing “deserve”Read more at location 4438

Add a note

Whether or not people’s natural assets are arbitrary from a moral point of view, they are entitled to them, and to what flows from them.Read more at location 4447

Add a note

Presumably the underlying principle would be that if any particular features are arbitrary from a moral point of view, then persons in the original position should not know they possess them. But this would exclude their knowing anything about themselves,Read more at location 4460

Note: IGNORANZA TOTALE Edit

Perhaps we are too quick when we suggest excluding knowledge of rationality, and so forth, merely because these features arise from morally arbitrary facts.Read more at location 4467

Note: LA RAZIONALITÀ DEI FANTASMI Edit

Here we see an ambiguity in saying that a fact is arbitrary from a moral point of view. It might mean that there is no moral reason why the fact ought to be that way, or it might mean that the fact’s being that way is of no moral significance and has no moral consequences. Rationality, the ability to make choices, and so on, are not morally arbitrary in this second sense.Read more at location 4469

Note: AMBIGUOTÀ

76 THE POSITIVE ARGUMENT - Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick

76 THE POSITIVE ARGUMENT - Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick - uguaglianzacomedefault andiamotuttinellostessocinemacomedefault? giustificarelepreferenze rawlsegalitarista

THE POSITIVE ARGUMENTRead more at location 4259

Note: 76@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit

capitalism distribution generally is in accordance with perceived service to others.Read more at location 4292

Note: I TALENTI SONO ARBITRARA? Edit

Often writers state a presumption in favor of equality in a form such as the following: “Differences in treatment of persons need to be justified.”Read more at location 4389

Note: UGUAGLIANZA COME DEFAULT Edit

But if I go to one movie theater rather than to another adjacent to it, need I justify my different treatment of the two theater owners? Isn’t it enough that I felt like going to one of them?Read more at location 4392

Note: DEVO GIUSTIFICARE LE PREFERENZE? Edit

Why must differences between persons be justified?Read more at location 4398

Add a note

Perhaps here is where social cooperation enters in: though there is no presumption of equality (in, say, primary goods, or things people care about) among all persons, perhaps there is one among persons cooperating together. But it is difficult to see an argument for this;Read more at location 4399

Note: COOPERARE Edit

Here we need only note that the connection argument D forges between not deserving natural assets and some conclusion about distributive shares assumes equality as a normRead more at location 4406

Note: IL MODELLO DI RAWLS È UNA VARIANTE EGALITARISTA

75 NATURAL ASSETS AND ARBITRARINESS Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick

75  NATURAL ASSETS AND ARBITRARINESS Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick - tuttoèfortunaeladignità? unalinearischiosa ilrigettodellalibertà

NATURAL ASSETS AND ARBITRARINESSRead more at location 4191

Note: 75@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit

Here we have Rawls’ reason for rejecting a system of natural liberty: it “permits” distributive shares to be improperly influenced by factors that are so arbitrary from a moral point of view. These factors are: “prior distribution . . . of natural talents and abilities as these have been developed over time by social circumstances and such chance contingencies as accident and good fortune.”Read more at location 4208

Note: IL NEMICO DI RAWLS: LA FORTUNA. PER QS RAWLS RIFIUTA LA LIBERTÀ Edit

Notice that there is no mention at all of how persons have chosen to develop their own natural assets.Read more at location 4211

Note: COME SI SFRUTTANO I TALENTI? Edit

Why is that simply left out? Perhaps because such choices also are viewed as being the products of factors outside the person’s control,Read more at location 4212

Note: C È FORTUNA ANCHE QUI Edit

denigrating a person’s autonomy and prime responsibility for his actions is a risky lineRead more at location 4221

Note: UNA LINEA RISCHIOSA CHE NN SI CONIUGA CON LA DIGNITÀ UMANA Edit

especially for a theory that founds so much (including a theory of the good) upon persons’ choices.Read more at location 4222

Add a note

and rests upon can be made to fit together with the view of human dignityRead more at location 4223

Add a note

(Rawls’ chart on page 124 listing the conceptions of justice considered in the original position does not include the system of natural liberty.)Read more at location 4229

Note: RAWLS ESCLUDE LA LIBERTÀ Edit

Rawls does not state why persons in the original position who considered the system of natural liberty would reject it.Read more at location 4231

Note: PERCHÈ RIGETTARE LA LIBERTÀ IN P.O.? BOH