Individual As "Castle"

Nozick’s theory of right is built in the cultural context of West. He does not analyze theconcept of entitlement, because the range of entitlement is a generally known faith. The coreof the theory is not the rights of citizens in a society or a state, but the process from individualrights to the minimal country. Nozick holds that to respect a person’s right is to respect thatperson himself/herself, and any violation of the right is prohibited. He starts from discussingthe state of nature, and justifies that “the minimal state” can “grow” up without violating anyindividuals’ rights. The birth of a state comes from the individual’ right which priors in logicalsense, so that the essential obligation should the state has is to protect individuals’ rights, andthe range of power of the state should be restricted to the minimal extent.“The minimal state”is not only necessary and rightful but also inspiring.Nozick constructs a whole system of his political philosophy on the base of the individualright. In his opinion entitlement should not be intervened or violated; others need not actpositively for this kind of right. His definition of entitlement is negative. He places thenon-violation of rights as a Side Constraint of behaviors which is given a moral connotation.Only can a behavior be moral, if it show respect to right. The standard of evaluating an actionis whether the action respects any existed rights. But it brings problems to build the politicalphilosophy on the base of the concept of negative. In nozick’s opinion, the right not onlydefines the limit of all actions, also sets up boundaries of individual’s actions.If the negative right is carried out from beginning to end, it will block communicationand sharing among people. Each entitled person will become indifferent and alone, so that hewill turn into a solitary unit. We call the aforementioned as a “castle dilemma”. FollowingNozick’s logic, this article intends to deduce the “castle dilemma” with which we compare theactual dilemma of modern person in an individualized society. Finally we will recognize boththe dilemma of Nozick’s right theory and the actual dilemma of Modern society. Theconclusion of this article is that an individual as a castle can be derived from the negativeright.This article can be divided into four parts except the preface. The first part compares theentitlement concepts of Ancient Greek with those of Modern, and tries to set up a greatbackground for the whole discussion. It is different from the concept of Ancient Greek thatthe right of Modern Times is related to individual. The second part is the exploration of Nozick’s theory of right, which includes the importance, meaning and exercising of rights.Nozick takes a negative meaning of right (Any violation of rights is prohibited.) as the core ofhis theory. A moral meaning is given to the standard of entitlement which becomes the onlymeasure of the judgment of people’s behaviors. The third part is a review of the entitlementtheory. Following Nozick’s logic, we find that he confronts a “castle dilemma” with whichcompares what people will encounter in modern society. This part starts from the analysis ofclosed right concept to a closed individual who huddles in the corner of the castle, bearing theloneliness and solitariness. The last part tries to summarize the whole discourse, and pointsout the “castle dilemma” definitely with Kavka’s words simultaneously.