Final answer:
Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example is used to argue against patterned theories of distributive justice, demonstrating that voluntary exchanges will disrupt any pre-determined distribution and that maintaining such a distribution would require constant interference with personal freedoms.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Wilt Chamberlain example is a philosophical argument presented by Robert Nozick in his book 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia.' It is a thought experiment designed to challenge theories of distributive justice, particularly those advocating for patterns or end-states. In this example, imagine a society that has a preferred distribution of wealth, which people deem to be fair. Now, imagine that Wilt Chamberlain, a popular basketball player, signs a contract whereby attendees at games can pay an extra 25 cents to see him play. Millions of people willingly transfer their money to Chamberlain, thus making him very wealthy.
This scenario demonstrates how voluntary exchanges can disrupt a particular pattern of distribution, leading to significant inequalities. Nozick uses this example to argue that holding a patterned theory of justice would mean we have to interfere with individuals' liberties to carry out voluntary exchanges, such as the ones that made Chamberlain wealthy. He contends that any patterned principle of distributive justice would require constant interference in individuals' lives, which he deems unjust. Therefore, the example is supposed to prove that patterned theories of justice cannot be sustained without infringing on personal freedom.