Final answer:
Nozick's entitlement theory of justice maintains that end-state and patterned distributive principles are not inherently just, in contrast to Rawls' egalitarian principles, which focus on benefiting the least advantaged. Nozick emphasizes justice as a product of fair acquisition, transfer, and rectification, while Rawls advocates for basic liberties and addressing inequalities through his difference principle.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Nozick's entitlement theory of justice, end-state principles and patterned principles of distribution are not inherently just. Nozick asserts that a just distribution is not about achieving a particular distribution at a given time (end-state) or distribution according to a determined pattern. Instead, a distribution is just if it arises from fair acquisition, transfer, and rectification of injustice. This contrasts significantly with Rawls' theory of justice, which includes egalitarian principles through the liberty and difference principles, advocating for a system of distribution that benefits the least advantaged and maintains equal basic liberties for all.
Nozick's libertarian perspective focuses on individual entitlements grounded in historical fairness rather than a specific distributive goal. This libertarian approach views the market as just when it adheres to fair acquisition and exchange principles without aiming for a particular distributive pattern. Robert Nozick is a major proponent of this view, which evaluates the justice of holdings not by how they meet an end-state or pattern, but by the legitimacy of their historical acquisition and transfer.