 |
| Replies |
 (Return) |
| Property Rights |
| Ayesha
Speaking
|
 I agree with Dee that
how a distribution of wealth came to be what it is is morally significant. Some people have claims to some things because of what they have done or not done. A theory that considers only consequences or the desirability of some end state pattern is unacceptable.but I would say that a utiltiarian theory of rights that stresses consequences and ignores history is no more plausible that a libertarian theory that stresses history and ignores consequences. In other words, no purely deontoogical or consequentialist theory is acceptable. We can construct highly intuitive counterexamples to both. It seems to me that one of the problems with Nozick's theory is that is goes beyond granting people a significant degree of control of some things depending on history. It gives them something bordering on complete control. Ann's theory, on the other hand, considers only consequences. She is locked into maximizing some sort of consequence. Isn't it more plausible to claim that both history and consequences must be considered? Isn’t it possible to give people a degree of control based on history but also consider consequences? |
| Ariadne's Home | Contact Ariadne at: | Justice Home |
| Justice Bibliography |  |
Justice Contents |
|
||