University of Utah Western Political Science Association

Why Nozick Is Not So Easy to Refute Author(s): Peter Singer Reviewed work(s): Source: The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Jun., 1976), pp. 191-192 Published by: University of Utah on behalf of the Western Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/448101 . Accessed: 27/10/2012 22:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Utah and Western Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Western Political Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

WHY NOZICK IS NOT SO EASY TO REFUTE

La Trobe University
PETER SINGER

at levelwithNozick'sgeneralposiI HOUGH disagree themostfundamental thanKaren tionin Anarchy, State,and Utopia,thebook is lessvulnerable it Johnson appears to think:in particular, is immuneto the main line of and is attackin her paper. Johnson chargesthat Nozick'stheory "antipolitical" as state"in whichwe can participate makesimpossible idea of a cooperative the of to citizens shape the commonconditions our lives." I agree,and likeJohnson we the to think important it thatwe act collectively control typeof society livein; because Nozick of but none of thisamountsto a truerefutation Nozick'stheory, ethic. doesnotbase hisviewson a consequentialist sentence the State and Utopia- literally first The starting pointof Anarchy, the of the book- setsout the moralstancethatgoverns restof the book: "Indior no and are vidualshaverights there things person groupmaydo to them in LaterNozickexplainshismoralposition more their (without rights)." violating than of moral rather a of and foremost theory moral constraints detail. It is first in interested maximizing anything, goals. This meansthatNozickis not primarily or or not cooperation, controlover our lives,or happiness, even the nonviolation of one of rights.He holdsthatthereare things mustnotdo to people,irrespective he the consequences (exceptpossibly though doesn'treallysay- to avoid utter catastrophe). Nozick.He would not trouble is So the chargethathis theory "antipolitical" is thatif the onlyway to avoid an antipolitical could accept it, claiming theory to is an violatepeople'srights, antipolitical theory whatwe musthave. SinceJohnson nor shownthat Nozick's moral theory, has not objected to Nozick'sunderlying to she stance is not trulyentailedby the theory, has done nothing antipolitical Nozick'sposition. undermine thatNozickis inconsistent; to does try suggest At one point (p. 184) Johnson of and thathe cannotbe trueto his own premises mustallow considerations comof his to mon good, in the formof the "Lockean proviso," influence theory propof for reading thepassagein whichtheproviso erty.But thisis a mistake, a careful showsthat it arisesin a logicalenoughway fromthe idea thatthe is introduced is unownedresources legitimate of onlyif others originalappropriation previously not made worseoff. So individual good,is all that are not thereby rights, common Nozick needs here, and I can see no reasonwhy,given the basis of individual cannotbe builtuponit. a theory rights, consistent is moraltheory?That, surely not simply But why rejectNozick'sunderlying of themoststraightforward to objectto his book. To setup a system prohibiway howminor no tionson whatwe can do to peoplethatcannotbe overridden, matter is thatcould be obtained, to takea most or the infringement how greatthebenefit at moralposition, odds withtheviewsof mostof thosewho have reflected extreme moralist maybe right;but he on basic moralissues. Of course,a nonconforming withspecial care. This Nozickhas not done; his to establish own position needs of admitsthat the book does not containa precisetheory the moral he himself that Yet so crucialis thisto hiswholeenterprise publishbasisof individual rights. a like it skythebook without showsconsiderable effrontery, building splendid ing without withrevolving solvingthe engineerrestaurant, rooftop complete scraper, will whether building standup. that the ingproblems determine noteis not the place in whichto discussthecorrectness a brief Unfortunately weakthanto pointto thisas thecentral so of a moraltheory; I shallgo no further

192

WesternPolitical Quarterly

ness of the book, and the one most in need of detailed criticalattention.The of remainder thisnoteis takenup withtwolesscentral in matters Johnson's paper whichrequirecomment. On page 184, and in the footnote thereto, puzzling sayssomething Johnson about the possibility therebeingmorethan one correct of of principle justice. I found her meaninghere unclear. Is she suggesting that theremay be several and principrinciples including perhapsan egalitarian principle, an entitlement and none of whichis alone ple-all of which ought to be given some weight, to sufficient determine a is whether distribution just or unjust? If thisis whatshe it is certainly possibility, if the sentence quotesfrom review a and she means, my it cannotbe is morethanone corimpliesthe contrary, is misleading.What there rectprinciple justice, of wherea "principle justice"determines what of completely is just and what unjust. Most of the principles justicethathave been put forof have been claimed to be of thistype. It may be thatwe ward by philosophers view: but we cannot should reject theseclaims and embracea more pluralistic the views, pretendthat in so doing we are acceptingand reconciling different with Nozick's thatanyinterference sinceit is a part of theseviews including of theirprescriptions lead to injustice.It is in thissensethatif twoprinciples will one be conflict, must wrong. justice that I have admitted Even granting formof pluralism the however, possible, to the will I cannotaccept the claim thatsometimes community be entitled make to whichhe willbe entitled deny. There maybe opposing claimson theindividual of prima facie principles justice: but in the last analysisone of themmustbe To resistance. deny to and henceentitled prevailwithout thantheother, weightier of whichwouldmakethewholetheory of thisis to accepta form moralrelativism, fordiscussion. an unprofitable subject justice to an I quotation approving making objection Johnson's Finally, cannotresist State of SheldonWolin'sreview Anarchy, 6) (in her footnote of thepassagefrom of a the and Utopia in whichWolin criticizes book forcontaining discussion the to moralstatusof animals,but notof othertopicswhichWolinconsiders be more the seemto me to be expressing Here Wolinand (apparently)Johnson important. which Nozick was concernedto challenge. Why conventional prejudices very humansare so muchmoreimportant shouldit be assumedthe problems involving nonhumans?Is it because we are humans? But then"we," than thoseinvolving are so far as the authorand mostof the readersof thisbook are concerned, also of discussions racismin the sameway. Is theresome so white, one could discount about animalsare less importhat problems more objectivegroundforthinking decide thisbeforehavinginhow could one possibly tant? Even if therewere, is in detail,the moralstatusof animals? That, however, a taskwhich vestigated, and Nozick should have undertaken, or few philosophers politicaltheorists very because he does give space to this neglectedsubject. be commendedprecisely thathe reaches-including the judgment the considering conclusions Moreover, in thatthe billionsof animalsslaughtered orderto be eaten each yearin the U.S. that have been killed unjustifiably- findit extraordinary anyoneshould feel the refuted imwithout able to denythat the topic is of importance havingfirst is of Nozickgivesforhisviews! Yet this, course, whathappens. arguments pressive of is The logic of the operation exactlythe reverse what it shouldbe. Insteadof on and then concluding thisbasis of a detailed refutation the arguments giving the that the problemis of littleimportance, priorand unarguedview that the to servesas an excuse fornot bothering examine problemis of littleimportance the arguments.