But what if those free exchanges result in a distribution that causes pain and suffering to some?
Does liberty always trump other moral considerations?
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
[PHI 2200] What's the freedom of us all against the suffering of the few?
Robert Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain case is supposed to show that any distribution which results from exchanges between people who are entitled to their property must be just. According to Nozick, to redistribute property that people have acquired as a result of free exchanges is a form of theft.
But what if those free exchanges result in a distribution that causes pain and suffering to some?
Does liberty always trump other moral considerations?
But what if those free exchanges result in a distribution that causes pain and suffering to some?
Does liberty always trump other moral considerations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
This is an academic blog about critical thinking, logic, and philosophy. So please refrain from making insulting, disparaging, and otherwise inappropriate comments. Also, if I publish your comment, that does not mean I agree with it. Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.