 |
| Replies |
 (Return) |
| On Property |
| 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 than a libertarian theory that stresses history and ignores consequences. In other words, no purely deontological 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 over some things depending on what they and others have done in the past. 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: | Property Home |
| Property Bibliography |  |
Property Contents |
|
|
||