Friday, October 18, 2013
I believe it is the case with Nozick that within his methods of transferring goods, that there is a defining line between just and unjust methods of transfer, a just transfer being the act of one individual lending something to another, while an unjust method goes along the lines of thievery. However, while contemplating on unjust methods of transfer, I came across a certain question regarding a hypothetical situation I've composed. Now it may not be flawless in its reasoning, but I believe it conveys the question well enough. So, imagine your at a friends house, and you ask your friend if you can go grab a snack from the pantry, he says sure. You get to the pantry and spot a cookie, you then proceed to eat the cookie and return to where your friend is. A little while later, your friend gets up to get a snack, and a few seconds after that he comes rushing into the room with an angry expression and exclaims, "Why did you eat my cookie, I've been saving that one for days, and it was the last one!" From this scenario, what I'm trying to say is that can one commit an unjust act of transfer if they don't know they're committing it. How were you supposed to know the importance of that cookie, and would anyone else care that you ate the last cookie that allegedly wasn't offered to you? One could argue perhaps that the situation is the complete reverse to what was previously asked in that one was oblivious to their act of thievery, but your friend was oblivious to his act of a just transfer. Another scenario that could be used is if there were a shepherd who while herding his sheep lost one. What would one think of an individual, who was starving and desperate, who by chance happened by the stray sheep and decided to kill, cook, and eat it respectively. Given that the individual did not know that the sheep belonged to someone, would it be possible to label this individual as a thief? What I want to know is if it is possible to commit an unjust act of transfer, within Nozick's society, if one doesn't realize that one is committing the act? Does the scenario change depending on whether the victim of the act is someone one knows or some complete stranger? And finally would others come to support the victim of the misunderstanding, in other words, would anyone care that you accidentally ate the last cookie your friend was saving, and would they pursue the individual who ate the shepherd's sheep?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe in your scenarios (at least the second one), Nozick would view the action as unjust. For the cookie example, the friend gives consent to eat a snack out of the pantry, which makes the situation a little more complicated. However, in the sheep example, the owner of the sheep clearly does not give consent to the one who killed it. Nozick’s transfer of holdings requires the owner of the holding to give it away according to the free use of his will. However, this clearly was not the case, despite the fact that the consumer was both ignorant and starving. Under the circumstances, Nozick would most likely believe compensation for the sheep would be adequately rectifying.
ReplyDeleteHowever, under Nozick’s rectificatory justice and a more extreme offense, does the state have the right to imprison or execute? Say that the man who killed the sheep was not starving, nor was ignorant, but maliciously slaughtered all of the shepherd’s sheep. Does this warrant for more punishment than simply compensation for the sheep? Most would argue that the act warrants imprisonment; however, would Nozick want a government that involved in society? The question I ask you all, then, would Nozick’s conception of rectificatory justice necessitate a larger role for the government, something Nozick’s ideology clearly wants to avoid?