IndexNot Radical EnoughIncentiveEffortBad ChoicesNozickWhat role does luck play in Rawls' development of right principles of justice? How could one argue that Rawls's critique of luck is too radical? Do you find this argument credible? In your answer, you might also include Nozick's view on luck. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay "In some cases, luck nullifies responsibility. In others it nullifies desert. It is often said that justice needs luck to be 'neutralized'" (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2005). Rawls believes that, in fact, luck must be neutralized to achieve justice. It holds luck responsible for three things: 1) social circumstance, 2) natural talent, and 3) what the market determines to be of high monetary value. It would be unfair to reward someone with more possessions social primaries when the paths leading to this are not chosen by himself. The difference principle aims to remedy this. My first paragraph is devoted to understanding Rawls's development of fair principles of justice based on his beliefs on luck. Second, I analyze criticisms of this understanding of what luck is responsible for, referring to incentive, effort, poor choice, and then Nozick's involvement with luck. This discussion therefore leads me to conclude that, although Rawls's views on luck are radical and present some credible criticisms, he does not overestimate the role of luck to the point that one should discard the difference principle, but actually reform it. so that it includes natural primary goods. Rawls's critique of luck plays a significant role in his development of the difference principle. The difference principle attempts to “neutralize” Rawls's belief that “only if everyone starts on the same starting line can the winners of the race be said to deserve their reward” (Sandel, 2015) and that “the starting positions of people cannot be justified by appealing to merit or desert” (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2005). Despite the free market's emphasis on freedom, not everyone is free to access and use the market to the same extent based on their starting point. Rawls claims that a libertarian free market is better than a feudal or caste system, but only marginally. (Sandel, 2015) The latter system explicitly imposes wealth based on the arbitrariness of birth into a specific family. While the first system allows everyone to compete and strive, their ability to do so is directly hindered or helped by the kinds of circumstances into which they are born. Rawls believes that this arbitrariness – luck dictating the starting point – should be remedied through his principles of justice. The principles of justice are also based on the belief that whether the desired profession corresponds to what society deems worthy of high pay also depends on luck. This third factor, which Rawls believes is due to luck, means that primary social goods should not be assigned arbitrarily, according to luck. 1) Social circumstances, 2) natural talents, and 3) which occupations pay well in society are all determined by luck, according to Rawls (Sandel, 2015). All this is crucial for the ability to pursue the conception of the good through the maintenance of justice. Rawls states that well-being and primary social goods should not be assigned arbitrarily and that “luck raisesquestions about the meaning of desert in the sphere of distributive justice” (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2005) because the quality of life should not be coordinated by circumstances that are beyond one's control. “The fundamental distinction for an egalitarian is between choice and luck in shaping people's fate” (Cohen, 2011:4) and Rawls believes that it is unfair for a person's fate to be determined by chance. Rawls understands that these three factors are all determined by fortuitous results which are remedied by the difference principle which aims to reduce inequality to a minimum so that only those inequalities are allowed that benefit the least advantaged the most and are linked to positions open to all (Sandel, 2015 ). Now that I have established how luck influences Rawls's principles of justice through the consequences of the difference principle, I will criticize his assessment of luck as, for the most part, too radical, paying attention to Nozick's response, or lack thereof. , to the Rawlsian critique of luck. But first I will criticize Rawls for being inconsistent in his difference principle. Not radical enough Rawls' definition of being worse off and having bad luck is entirely determined by the ownership of social primary goods and not natural primary goods (Kymlicka, 2015). The difference principle does not eliminate the burden of having a health-related disability. Although a physically disabled person has more social assets than an able-bodied person, he or she is considered to have a greater advantage even if his or her wealth is not enough to cover the cost of necessary medical care. In this way, I would argue that perhaps Rawls's perception of the role of luck is not radical enough because it does not extend to the random allocation of all primary goods at birth. On the other hand, Rawls's critique of luck is too radical because of the implications of the difference principle. Incentive The first objection is to reward work with wealth as an incentive to benefit the community. Perhaps overestimating luck does a disservice to ambitious, hard-working individuals, as well as society as a whole: “If tax rates are high or pay gaps are small, talented people who might have been surgeons will not go to less challenging?” (Sandel, 2015) and therefore the company will find itself losing a potentially excellent surgeon. This is a reasonably compelling objection to Rawl's radical view of luck because it not only looks at the fairness between a wealthy person and a less wealthy person, but also at the general well-being of society as a whole. the overcompensation of perceived luck is that of effort and is less convincing. This objection states that effort is also a factor in obtaining wealth and should be rewarded (Sandel, 2015). Rawls's answer to this is that the effort a person is willing to expend is also influenced by his or her upbringing and, therefore, luck. Rawls's response to this is valid and therefore the criticism is not strong enough. Bad Choices Furthermore, “the difference principle makes no distinction between chosen and unchosen inequalities” (Kymlicka, 2015). It's not fair to subsidize one person's bad choices with the earnings of another person who made good choices. This argument is credible, but I would respond by saying that luck still plays a role in the factors that influence someone to make a specific choice. NozickNozick generally ignores Rawls's critique of luck altogether and fails to engage on the topic. Without a principled view on the role and meaning of luck, Nozick's absolutism about “property” rights remains vulnerable. However, the main result obtained from this.