University of Kansas, Spring 2003
Philosophy 555: Justice and Economic Systems
Ben Eggleston—eggleston@ku.edu
Paper Topics / Test Questions—Nozick
Your assignment is either to write a paper or to take a test on Nozick’s Anarchy,
State, and Utopia. There will be a similar assignment for the third book of
the course. The analogue of whichever option you don’t pick for this
assignment is what you’ll have to do for the next one.
I. Paper
Anarchy, State, and Utopia is rich in contentious claims—some of them
directly relevant to Nozick’s overall aims, others confessedly tangential. The
paper assignment is to write a paper of about six pages (of double-spaced,
12-point type) focusing on one of Nozick’s significant claims and developing the
most effective objection to it that you can. In order to succeed on this
assignment, you must understand that you will be graded not only on the
effectiveness of your objection, but also on the significance of the claim to
which you offer your objection. In choosing a claim to critique, then, you must
strike a balance between (1) choosing a claim that is easy to refute, but that
is also quite trivial, and (2) choosing a claim that is undeniably significant,
but that is also very hard to refute.
In order to fulfill the two main requirements of this assignment, you might
well want to structure your paper in the following way.
- First, describe the claim that Nozick makes that will be the object of
your critique. This could probably be done in a short opening paragraph.
- Second, explain why this claim is significant to Nozick’s theory. You
might explain, for example, that if the claim with which you’re concerned turns
out to be objectionable, then there will turn out to be problems with Nozick’s
account of one of the following; this could probably be done in a page or so.
- how a dominant protective association can be expected to arise from
anarchy
- how a dominant protective association can legitimately be transformed
into, or assume the functions of, an ultraminimal state
- how an ultraminimal state can legitimately be transformed into, or
assume the functions of, a minimal state
- how the concept of distributive justice does not underwrite an adequate defense of a more-than-minimal state
- how the concept of equality (or envy, or exploitation, or whatever) does
not underwrite an adequate defense of a more-than-minimal state
- Third, explain why the claim you have identified, and whose significance
for Nozick’s theory you have established, is objectionable. This will require
arguments, and should occupy the bulk of your paper.
One mistake to avoid is attempting a general criticism of any of the
above components of Nozick’s theory. For although such a paper would obviously
have no trouble with the “significance” criterion, it would surely falter on
the “effectiveness” criterion, since each of the above issues is too broad to be
dealt with effectively in a six-page paper. (That is why I say to pick a narrower
claim as the object of your critique, and then explain how that narrower claim
is an essential, or at least necessary, element in a larger component that is
obviously significant). The opposite sort of mistake, of course, is to offer a
criticism of something so minute or peripheral that it lacks significance. The
demands of significance and effectiveness tend to oppose each other; so, as I said
above, part of your job is to strike a balance between the two.
There are two due dates
for this paper:
-
The first due date is for peer
commenting on papers. On Wednesday, April 16, you will meet with two of your
classmates, and the three of you will read and comment on each other’s papers.
(You will do this during class, unless your group agrees on another time,
and at a place to be chosen by your group—except not in our classroom,
since some of your classmates will be taking the test then, as described
below.) You
should have your classmates read as final and polished a version
of your paper as you can manage, so that you can get feedback on your best
work.
-
The second due date is for
turning in the final version of your paper to me. Final copies of papers
will be due in class on Friday, April 18. Be sure to indicate, on your
paper, which of your classmates commented on it.
In writing your paper you are
welcome to use resources beyond those used in class, but you do not need to do so. For additional suggestions about writing philosophy papers generally, see my “Guidelines
for Writing a Philosophy Paper.”
II. Test
The test will be given in class on Wednesday, April 16, and will consist
of 100 points’ worth of the following questions. There may also be a bonus
question or two, not listed here. Please bring a blue book.
- (20 points:) Summarize Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Keep this
brief—no more than, say, one sentence per chapter or two, presented so that
collectively your paragraph (or maybe two) describes the overall trajectory
(not necessarily many of the details) of the whole book.
- (10 points:) What are the essential elements of the natural-rights
doctrine that Nozick takes for granted as the foundation of his theory?
- (10 points:) In what way is state-of-nature theory both justificatory and
explanatory, according to Nozick?
- (20 points:) How does Nozick imagine a dominant protective association
arising, and in what two respects does it fall short of being a minimal state?
- (10 points:) What is a side constraint? How does a theory that regards
rights in terms of side constraints differ from what might be called a
“utilitarianism of rights”?
- (20 points:) How does Nozick distinguish between acts for which
compensation is required and acts that are prohibited? What are two of the
three reasons Nozick cites to explain why some acts are prohibited?
- (10 points:) What is the basic idea that justifies the dominant protective
association in assuming the functions of an ultraminimal state?
- (10 points:) What is the basic idea that justifies an ultraminimal state
in assuming the functions of a minimal state? (Be sure to mention the
principle of compensation in your answer.)
- (20 points:) By way of what arguments does Nozick imagine that
considerations of distributive justice might be claimed, by some, to justify a
more-than-minimal state? Why, according to Nozick, do such arguments fail?
- (10 points:) What does Nozick say in response to Rawls’s claim that the
difference principle is a basis on which the better off could reasonably
expect to attain the willing cooperation of the worse off?
- (10 points:) What does Nozick mean when he says, “The particular rights
over things fill the space of rights, leaving no room for general rights” (p.
238)?
- (20 points:) By way of what arguments does Nozick imagine that the idea of
exploitation might be claimed, by some, to justify a more-than-minimal state?
Why, according to Nozick, do such arguments fail?
- (10 points:) Describe the series of examples that Nozick uses to cast
doubt on the legitimacy of a more-than-minimal state.
- (20 points:) What is Nozick’s conception of utopia? How, according to
Nozick, does the minimal state provide a “framework” for utopia?