Abstract

The aim of this dissertation is to show that a socialist theory is the most reasonable of the theories commonly offered as accounts of our sense of justice regarding people's holdings. The three alternatives discussed are the libertarian theory, the meritarian theory, and the liberal theory. ;The theories of Robert Nozick and F. A. Hayek are taken as representative libertarian theories. The implications of these theories are explored by means of three detailed examples. One objection raised is that the kind of liberty prescribed by libertarian theories is unacceptable. Another crucial objection is that these theories lie outside the "moral point of view" in certain respects. ;Meritarian theories are described and criticized next. These are theories which prescribe a direct proportionality between people's meritorious qualities or performances and their just shares of holdings. The most decisive objections are those of William Frankena, who shows the difficulty in finding personal qualities or performances which are appropriate as bases for applying the meritarian formula. ;John Rawls's theory of justice is taken as representative of the liberal position, which extends the conception of equality into the realms of opportunity and welfare. The main criticism is due to Norman Daniels, who shows that near-equality in welfare is necessary in practice in order to ensure the worth of people's liberties. ;The chapter on the socialist theory is devoted to formulating the theory, and then defending it against the criticisms of J. R. Lucas, who attempts to place socialism outside the boundaries of reasonable equalitarian prescriptions. At the end of the chapter, some probable practical implications of the socialist theory are surveyed.