The difference in rawls and nozick is fundamentally a difference in what it means to be an indiviudal. what is that difference and how does that difference impact their theories

Rawls and Nozick Theories on the meaning of Individual The primary difference between Nozick and Rawls is the legitimacyof the social power of individuals (Paul, Miller, and Paul 164). Rawls theory acknowledges on the role of democracy in a diverse society. He argues that an individual should exercise political power over one another. Rawls practice of political power should be within the limits of the constitution. The theory of Justice is founded on the belief that individual are entitled to free and equal rights with respect to principles and ideals that affect them. On the other hand, Nozick is convinced that individuals are entitled to justice based on the social and economic they have in their possession. The practice of practice of political and social power should be within the limits of justice. Nozick perspective of justice is a critique of Rawls propositions. Not all members of the society benefit from the social cooperation.
Rawls’ theory of justice should be based on the reality that the successful individuals in the society have an upper hand on the less disadvantaged in the society. The reality helps the theory to address diversity better in a liberal society. The theory would assist individuals to orient better in their social world. Nozick’s theory becomes a tool for determining the moral outcomes of individuals in the society. The theory should have a model that can enable people understand society from a broader perspective of justice. Human life is not defined through corruption, prejudice, and cruelty but through free and equality principles (Paul, Miller and Paul 165).
Work Cited
Paul, Ellen Frankel, Fred D Miller, and Jeffrey Paul. Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.