Is income redistribution a violation of the categorical imperative?
In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick made the argument that income redistribution violates the Kantian categorical imperative. Nozick’s retrospective enslavement argument is still used today in discussions about the moral justification of taxation. This article explicates four implicit pr...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Omsk State Technical University, Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education
2024-09-01
|
| Series: | Омский научный вестник: Серия "Общество. История. Современность" |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.omgtu.ru/general_information/media_omgtu/journal_of_omsk_research_journal/files/arhiv/2024/%D0%A2.9,%20%E2%84%96%203%20(%D0%9E%D0%98%D0%A1)/90-98%20%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%9A.%20%D0%95..pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick made the argument that income
redistribution violates the Kantian categorical imperative. Nozick’s retrospective
enslavement argument is still used today in discussions about the moral justification
of taxation. This article explicates four implicit premises of Nozick’s argument: the
self-ownership principle, its fullness, the absence of restrictions on the appropriation
of natural resources, and the absence of restrictions on the distribution of the
fruits of cooperation. Without additional justification for each of these premises,
Nozick’s argument cannot show that income redistribution violates the categorical
imperative. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2542-0488 2541-7983 |