The Comparison Of Nozick's And Dworkin's Right Theories

Nozick and Dworkin are a famous philosopher and a philosopher of law in America in the 20th century respectively. Since "right" is the central concept in their philosophy, we can call their theories "the right theory". The two theories both originate in modern Natural Right Thought of Lock's, and form in arguing about Social Justice of Rawls', who is another American philosopher. The two theories have ethical idea and individualism stand in common, but owing to the two persons' preferring to different social value, they demonstrate the obvious difference. Nozick approves Rawls' basic concept of "Justice is Primary Value of Society", but he thinks that "justice" means "the individual rights", and the essential content of "individual rights" is just the "natural rights" declared by Lock. This kind of right is absolute, sacred and inviolable. Not only the most basic function of the country should protect the personal rights, but also do "individual rights" limit others' and the country's action range, and they have a kind of function of "moral side restriction". Dworkin, however, regards "equality" as the key concept of his Right Theory, and agrees with Rawls to pursue the economic policy of the "equal welfare" to take care of those receiving least benefits. He shows that the citizen also enjoys more basic moral rights than legal rights besides enjoying the rights of the legal provisions;The government's function does not lie in protecting personal freedom, but lies in itself being the model of carrying out the law and moral stipulations, and it should offer equal care and respect to the people that it governs. If not, people have the right to be against the government. It can be found through the contrast of this text, the theories of the two represent contemporary western liberalism's conflict on "freedom" and "equality"--these two social basic values. Because of the one- dimensioned angle of their thought, the theories of the two unavoidably have great limitation and one-sidedness;and because of their "individualism" position that separates from society, which makes their thoughts poorer and weaker. Therefore, there is no wonder the "soft rib" in their theories suffers the attack of communitarians. Their theories, however, have reflected the common social problems that the eastern and western countries are confronted with. Finding out their thinking results in this respect, fetching its quintessence, and leaving its dross, have important reference significance to Chinese overall reform and opening-up and socialist economic construction.