CHAPTER TWO
Ethical Principles in Business
Overview
Introduction
In this chapter, we begin with a discussion of apartheid-era South Africa and Caltex, an
American oil company operating in South Africa during that time. A large number of Caltex
stockholders opposed the company’s operations in South Africa, and introduced a series of
shareholder resolutions requiring Caltex to leave South Africa, which they saw as racist and
immoral. Caltex’s management did not agree. Rather than focusing on the financial
assistance they were giving the South African government, they pointed to the positive
effects their operations had on black workers.
South African leaders, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, were not convinced by Caltex’s
arguments. He supported the shareholder resolutions, saying that comfort under an
immoral regime was not preferable to freedom, even at the cost of economic hardship.
The point of this example is to show how a real moral debate in business works. The
arguments on both sides appealed to moral considerations and four basic types of moral
standards: utilitarianism, rights, justice, and caring. The shareholders’ argument referred to
the unjust policies of the apartheid government and the fact that these policies violated the
civil rights of black citizens. On the other side, Caltex’s management made utilitarian
arguments and arguments about caring: it was in blacks’ best interests to have Caltex jobs,
and Caltex had a duty to take care of these workers as best it could. In addition, both sides
refer to the moral character of the groups involved, basing these distinctions on what is
called the ethic of virtue.
The following sections of this chapter explain each of these approaches, identifying their
strengths and weaknesses and showing how they can be used to clarify the moral issues we
confront in business.
2.1 Utilitarianism: Weighing Social Costs and Benefits
Utilitarianism (or consequentialism) characterizes the moral approach taken by Caltex’s
management. Another example, Ford and its infamous Pinto, demonstrates just how closely
the weighing of costs and benefits can be done.
Ford knew that the Pinto would explode when rear-ended at only 20 mph, but they also
knew that it would cost $137 million to fix the problem. Since they would only have to pay
$49 million in damages to injured victims and the families of those who died, they
calculated that it was not right to spend the money to fix the cars when society set such a
low price on the lives and health of the victims. The kind of analysis that Ford managers
used in their cost-benefit study is a version of what has been traditionally called
utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a general term for any view that holds that actions and
policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on
society. In any situation, the “right” action or policy is the one that will produce the greatest
net benefits or the lowest net costs (when all alternatives have only net costs).
Many businesses rely on such utilitarian cost-benefit analyses, and maintain that the socially
responsible course to take is the utilitarian one with the lowest net costs.
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
21
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) founded traditional utilitarianism. His version of the theory
assumes that we can measure and add the quantities of benefits produced by an action and
subtract the measured quantities of harm it will cause, allowing us to determine which
action has the most benefits or lowest total costs and is therefore moral. The utility
Bentham had in mind was not the greatest benefit for the person taking the action, but
rather the greatest benefit for all involved. For Bentham:
“An action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the sum total of
utilities produced by that act is greater than the sum total of utilities produced
by any other act the agent could have performed in its place.”
Also, it is important to note that only one action can have the lowest net costs and greatest
net benefits.
To determine what the moral thing to do on any particular occasion might be, there are four
considerations to follow:
1. You must determine what alternative actions are available.
2. You must estimate the direct and indirect costs and benefits the action would
produce for all involved in the foreseeable future.
3. Subtract the costs from the benefits to determine the net utility of each action.
4. The action that produces the greatest sum total of utility must be chosen as the
ethically appropriate course of action, this being the alternative that produces the
greatest sum total of utility.
Utilitarianism is attractive to many because it matches the views we tend to hold when
discussing governmental policies and public goods. Most people agree, for example, that
when the government is trying to determine on which public projects it should spend tax
monies, the proper course of action would be for it to adopt those projects that objective
studies show will provide the greatest benefits for the members of society at the least cost.
It also fits in with the intuitive criteria that many employ when discussing moral conduct.
Utilitarianism can explain why we hold certain types of activities, such as lying, to be
immoral: it is so because of the costly effects it has in the long run. However, traditional
utilitarians would deny that an action of a certain kind is always either right or wrong.
Instead, each action would have to be weighed given its particular circumstances. Utilitarian
views have also been highly influential in economics. A long line of economists, beginning in
the 19th century, argued that economic behavior could be explained by assuming that
human beings always attempt to maximize their utility and that the utilities of commodities
can be measured by the prices people are willing to pay for them.
Utilitarianism is also the basis of the techniques of economic cost–benefit analysis. This
type of analysis is used to determine the desirability of investing in a project (such as a
dam, factory, or public park) by calculating whether its present and future economic
benefits outweigh its present and future economic costs. To calculate these costs and
benefits, discounted monetary prices are estimated for all the effects the project will have
on the present and future environment and on present and future populations. Finally, we
can note that utilitarianism fits nicely with a value that many people prize: efficiency.
Efficiency can mean different things to different people, but for many it means operating in
such a way that one produces the most one can with the resources at hand.
Though utilitarianism offers a superficially clear-cut method of calculating the morality of
actions there are three important mistakes to watch out for when using utilitarianism.
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
22
Because almost everyone makes these mistakes when they first start thinking about
utilitarianism:
1. When the utilitarian principle says that the right action for a particular occasion is the
one that produces more utility than any other possible action, it does not mean that
the right action is the one that produces the most utility for the person performing
the action. Rather, an action is right if it produces the most utility for all persons
affected by the action, including of course, the person who performed the action.
2. To think that the utilitarian principle only requires us to consider only the direct and
immediate consequences of our actions. Instead ,both the immediate and all
foreseeable future costs and benefits that each alternative will provide for each
individual must be taken into account, as well as any significant indirect effects
3. The most important mistake is to say that the utilitarian principle action is right so
long as its own outweigh its own costs. Instead, utilitarianism says that the right
action is the one whose combined benefits and costs outweigh the combined benefits
and costs of every other action the agent could carry out. In other words,
utilitarianism holds that to determine the morally right action in any given situation,
we must compare the utility of all of the actions that one could carry out in that
situation;
Though utilitarianism offers a superficially clear-cut method of calculating the morality of
actions, it relies upon accurate measurement, and this can be problematic. There are five
major problems with the utilitarian reliance on measurement:
1. Comparative measures of the values things have for different people cannot be
made-we cannot get into each others’ skins to measure the pleasure or pain
caused.
2. Some benefits and costs are impossible to measure. How much is a human life
worth, for example?
3. The potential benefits and costs of an action cannot always be reliably predicted,
so they are also not adequately measurable.
4. It is unclear exactly what counts as a benefit or a cost. People see these things in
different ways.
5. Utilitarian measurement implies that all goods can be traded for equivalents of
each other. However, not everything has a monetary equivalent.
The critics of utilitarianism contend that these measurement problems undercut whatever
claims utilitarian theory makes towards providing an objective basis for determining
normative issues. These problems have become especially obvious in debates over the
feasibility of corporate social audits.
Utilitarians defend their approach against the objections raised by these problems by saying
that though ideally they would like accurate measurements of everything; they know that
this is largely impossible. Therefore, when measurements are difficult or impossible to
obtain, shared or common-sense judgments of comparative value are sufficient.
There are two widely used common-sense criteria. One relies on the distinction between
intrinsic goods and instrumental goods. Intrinsic goods are things that are desired for
their own sake, such as health and life. These goods always take precedence over
instrumental goods, which are things that are good because they help to bring about an
intrinsic good. The other common-sense criterion depends on the distinction between needs
and wants. Goods that bring about needs are more important than those that bring about
wants. However, these methods are intended to be used only when quantitative methods
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
23
fail.
The most flexible method is to measure actions and goods in terms of their monetary
equivalents. If someone is willing to pay twice as much for one good than for another, we
can assume that the former is twice as valuable for that person. Many people are made
uncomfortable by the notion that health and life must be assigned a monetary value.
Utilitarians point out that we do so every day, however, by paying for some safety
measures but not for those measures that are considered more expensive. Additionally,
there may be instances where market prices are incapable of providing quantitative data for
comparing costs and benefits of various decisions. For instance, for sociological issues, a
survey or a political vote can be used to measure the intensity and extensiveness of
people’s attitudes.
The major difficulty with utilitarianism, according to some critics, is that it is unable to deal
with two kinds of moral issues: those relating to rights and those relating to justice. If
people have rights to life, health, and other basic needs, and if there is such a thing as
justice that does not depend on mere utility, then utilitarianism does not provide a complete
picture of morality. Utilitarianism can also go wrong, according to the critics, when it is
applied to situations that involve justice. Utilitarianism looks only at how much utility is
produced in a society and fails to take into account how that utility is distributed among the
members of society.
Largely in response to these concerns, utilitarians have devised an alternative version,
called rule utilitarianism. In this version, instead of looking at individual acts to see
whether they produce more pleasure than the alternatives, one looks only at moral rules at
actions of a particular type. If actions of a kind tend to produce more pleasure or have lower
costs, then they are the moral types of actions. Just because an action produces more utility
on one occasion does not show it is right ethically.
Rule utilitarianism may not completely answer all of the objections raised by critics of
utilitarianism. A rule may generally produce more utility and still be unjust: consider rules
that would allow a large majority to take unfair advantage of a smaller minority.
The theory of the rule utilitarian, then, has two parts, which we can summarize in the
following two principles:
1. An action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the action would be
required by those moral rules that are correct.
2. A moral rule is correct if and only if the sum total of utilities produced if everyone
were to follow that rule is greater than the sum total utilities produced if everyone
were to follow some alternative rule.
Thus, according to the rule-utilitarian, the fact that a certain action would maximize utility
on one particular occasion does not show that it is right from an ethical point of view.
Thus, the two major limits to utilitarianism difficulties of measurement and the inability to
deal with rights and justice remain, though the extent to which they limit utilitarian morality
is not clear.
2.2 Rights and Duties
On May 17, 2009 a 17-year-old boy, Yiu Wah, who had been hired at the age of 15, was
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
24
crushed and killed while trying to clear a jammed machine in the factory of a Chinese
supplier that was making products for the Walt Disney Company, the world’s second-largest
media conglomerate. 28 Witnesses claimed that the use of child labor was a human rights
violation that was common at the factory of Disney’s supplier.
On March 3, 2004, executives of Walt Disney, the world’s second largest media
conglomerate, were confronted with a group of stockholders concerned about the company’s
human rights record in China. Walt Disney markets merchandise based on its characters
and films, including toys, apparel, watches, consumer electronics and accessories. Much of
this merchandise is manufactured in China in factories that contract with Disney to produce
the merchandise according to Disney’s specifications. The Congressional-Executive
Commission on China, a group established by the U.S. Congress in 2001, reported in 2003,
however, “China’s poor record of protecting the internationally recognized rights of its
workers has not changed significantly in the past year. Chinese workers cannot form or join
independent trade unions, and workers who seek redress for wrongs committed by their
employers often face harassment and criminal charges. Moreover, child labor continues to
be a problem in some sectors of the economy, and forced labor by prisoners is common.” In
its March 2003 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. State Department said
China’s economy also made massive use of prison or forced labor.
In general, a right is a person’s entitlement to something; one has a right to something
when one is entitled to act a certain way or to have others act in a certain way towards
oneself. An entitlement is called a legal right. Entitlements can come from laws or moral
standards; the latter are called moral rights or human rights. They specify, in general,
that all humans are permitted to do something or are entitled to have something done for
them.
In our ordinary discourse, we use the term right to cover a variety of situations in which
individuals are enabled to make such choices in very different ways. First, we sometimes
use the term right to indicate the mere absence of prohibitions against pursuing some
interest or activity. Second, we sometimes use the term right to indicate that a person is
authorized or empowered to do something either to secure the interests of others or to
secure one’s interests. Third, the term right is sometimes used to indicate the existence of
prohibitions or requirements on others that enable the individual to pursue certain interests
or activities
The most important rights are those that impose requirements or prohibitions on others,
enabling people to choose whether or not to do something. Moral rights have three
important features defining them:
1. Moral rights are closely correlated with duties. If I have a right to do something,
then other people have a moral duty to not interfere when I do it.
2. Moral rights provide individuals with autonomy and equality in the free pursuit of
their interests, i.e., to pursue or not pursue the interest.
3. Moral rights provide a basis for justifying one’s actions and invoking the protection or
aid of others.
Moral judgments made on the basis of rights differ substantially from those based on utility.
First, they are based on the individual, whereas utilitarianism is based on society as a
whole. Second, rights limit the validity of preferring numbers and social benefits to the
individual. On the other hand, although rights generally override utilitarian standards, they
do not always do so. In times of war, for example, civil rights are commonly restricted for
the public good.
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
25
Besides negative rights, which are defined entirely in terms of the duties others have not
to interfere with you, there are also positive rights. Positive rights imply that others have
a duty not only to refrain from interference, but also to provide you with what you need to
pursue your interests. Privacy is an example of a negative right; the rights to food, life, and
health care are positive. In general, more liberal theorists hold that society should
guarantee positive as well as negative rights; conservatives wish to limit government to
enforcing negative rights. Positive rights were not emphasized until the 20th century.
Negative rights were often employed in the 17th and 18th centuries by writers of manifestos
(such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights), who were anxious to
protect individuals against the encroachments of monarchical governments. Positive rights
became important in the 20th century when society increasingly took it on itself to provide
its members with the necessities of life that they were unable to provide for themselves.
Contractual Rights
There are other rights as well. Those most closely connected to business activity are
contractual rights, sometimes called special rights and duties or special obligations.
These contractual rights are created by specific agreements and conferred only on the
parties involved. They required publicly accepted rules on what constitutes agreements and
what obligations agreements impose. Additionally, they underlie the special rights and
duties imposed by accepting a position or role in an institution or organization. It requires
the following:
1. Both parties to a contract must have full knowledge of the nature of the agreement.
2. Neither party must intentionally misrepresent the facts.
3. Neither party must be forced to enter the contract.
4. The contract must not bind the parties to an immoral act.
Generally, a contract that violates one or more of these requirements is considered void.
How do we know that people have rights? A person has rights because the person lives
within a legal system that guarantees those rights. But, what is the basis of the moral
rights? Utilitarians argue that moral rights come about because they maximize utilities.
However, it is doubtful that utilitarianism provides an adequate answer for moral rights. To
say that someone has a moral right is to say that person is entitled to it regardless of the
utilitarian benefits it provides for others.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) provides a more satisfactory foundation for moral rights and is
shown in the theory that he developed. He argued that there are certain moral rights and
duties that all human beings possess regardless of any utilitarian benefits that the exercise
of those rights and duties may provide for others.
His theory is based on a moral principle that he called the Categorical Imperative and
that requires that everyone should be treated as a free person equal to everyone else.
The First Formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative is one of the most powerful
groundings for moral rights (and therefore the ethical rules governing contracts). His
principle requires that everyone be treated as a free and equal person. It states, “I ought
never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a
universal law.” A maxim, according to Kant, is the reason a person has for doing what he
plans to do. Therefore, an action is morally right if the person’s reason for doing it is a
reason he would be willing to have every person in a similar situation act upon. Kant’s first
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
26
version of the categorical imperative states:
“An action is morally right for a person in a certain situation if, and only if, the
person’s reason for carrying out the action is a reason that he or she would be willing
to have every person act on, in any similar situation.”
The first formulation of the categorical imperative incorporates two criteria for determining
moral right and wrong: universalizability and reversibility. Universalizability means the
person’s reasons for acting must be reasons that everyone could act on at least in principle.
Reversibility means the person’s reasons for acting must be reasons that he or she would be
willing to have all others use, even as a basis of how they treat him or her. That is, one’s
reasons for acting must be reasons that everyone could act upon in principle, and the
person’s reasons must be such that he would be willing to have all others use them as well.
Unlike utilitarianism, which focuses on consequences, Kantian theory focuses on interior
motivations.
The second formulation Kant’s Categorical Imperative is this: “Act in such a way that
you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never
simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” Or never treat people simply as
a means, but always also as ends. What Kant means by “treating humanity as an end” is
that everyone should treat each human being as a being whose existence as a free rational
person should be promoted. For Kant, this means two things: (a) respect each person’s
freedom by treating people only as they have freely consented to be treated beforehand,
and (b) develop each person’s capacity to freely choose for him or herself the aims he or
she will pursue. Kant’s second version of the categorical imperative can be expressed in the
following principle:
“An action is morally right for a person if, and only if, in performing the action,
the person does not use others only as a means for advancing his or her own
interests, but always (1) treats them as they have freely and rationally consented
to be treated, and (2) contributes to their ability to pursue what they have freely
and rationally chosen t pursue.”
This version of the categorical imperative implies that human beings have an equal dignity
that sets them apart from things such as tools or machines and that is incompatible with
their being manipulated, deceived, or otherwise unwillingly exploited to satisfy the self-
interests of another.
However, even if the categorical imperative explains why people have moral rights, it
cannot by itself tell us what particular moral rights humans have. And when rights come
into conflict, it cannot tell us which right should take precedence. Still, there seem to be
three basic rights that can be defended on Kantian grounds:
1. Humans have a clear interest in being provided with the work, food, clothing,
housing, and medical care they need to live.
2. Humans have a clear interest in being free from injury or fraud and in being free
to think, have privacy, and associate with whomever as they choose.
3. Humans have a clear interest in preserving the institution of contracts.
Despite the attractiveness of Kant’s theory, critics have argued that, like utilitarianism, it
has its limitations and inadequacies. A first problem that critics have traditionally pointed
out is that Kant’s theory is not precise enough to always be useful. Second, some critics
claim that although we might be able to agree on the kinds of interests that have the status
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
27
of moral rights, there is substantial disagreement concerning what the limits of each of
these rights are and concerning how each of these rights should be balanced against other
conflicting rights. A third group of criticisms that have been made of Kant’s theory is that
there are counterexamples that show the theory sometimes goes wrong. Most
counterexamples to Kant’s theory focus on the criteria of universalizability and reversibility.
A very different view of rights is based on the work of libertarian philosophers such as
Robert Nozick. They claim that freedom from constraint is necessarily good, and that all
constraints imposed on one by others are necessary evils, except when they prevent even
greater human constraints. The only basic right we all possess is the negative right to be
free from the coercion of other human beings.
Thus, the libertarian view that coercive restrictions on freedom are immoral (except when
needed to restrain coercion) is also supposed to justify the free use of property, freedom of
contract, a free market system, and the elimination of taxes to pay for social welfare
programs.
Libertarians may pass too quickly over the fact that the freedom of one person necessarily
imposes constraints on other persons. It follows then that if one person is granted freedom,
other persons must be constrained from interfering with that person. If I have the right to
unionize, for example, I constrain the rights of my employer to treat me as he sees fit for
the employer to hire non-union employees. Though libertarians tend to use Kant to support
their views, there is no consensus on whether or not this is actually possible. There is also
no good reason to assume that only negative rights exist.
2.3 Justice and Fairness
The dispute over “brown lung” disease caused by cotton dust illustrates how references to
justice and fairness permeate such concerns. Justice and fairness are essentially
comparative. They are concerned with the comparative treatment given to the members of
a group when benefits and burdens are distributed, when rules and laws are administered,
when members of a group cooperate or compete with each other, and when people are
when members of a group cooperate or compete with each other, and when people are
punished for the wrongs they have done or compensated for the injuries they have suffered.
Justice generally refers to matters that are more serious than fairness, though some
philosophers maintain that fairness is more fundamental. In general, we think that
considerations of justice are more important than utilitarian concerns: greater benefits for
some do not justify injustices to others. However, standards of justice to not generally
override the moral rights of individuals. This is probably because justice is, to some extent,
based on individual moral rights.
There are three categories of issues involving justice:
1. Distributive justice is concerned with the fair distribution of society’s benefits
and burdens.
2. Retributive justice refers to the just imposition of punishments and penalties
on those who do wrong.
3. Compensatory justice is concerned with compensating people for what they
lost when harmed by others.
Questions of distributive justice arise when there is a scarcity of benefits or a plethora of
burdens; not enough food or health care, for example, or too much unpleasant work. When
resources are scarce, we must develop principles to allocate them fairly. The fundamental
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
28
principle of distributive justice is that equals should be treated equally (and unequals
treated unequally). The fundamental principle of distributive justice may be expressed as
follows:
“Individuals who are similar in all respects relevant to the kind of treatment in
question should be given similar benefits and burdens, even if they are dissimilar
in other irrelevant respects; and individuals who are dissimilar in a relevant
respect ought to be treated dissimilarly, in proportion to their dissimilarity.”
Egalitarians hold that there are no relevant differences among people that can justify
unequal treatment. According to the egalitarian, all benefits and burdens should be
distributed according to the following formula:
“Every person should be given exactly equal shares of a society’s or a group’s
benefits and burdens.”
Though equality is an attractive social ideal for many, egalitarianism has been strongly
criticized. Some critics claim that need, ability, and effort are all relevant differences among
people, and that it would be unjust to ignore these differences.
Some egalitarians have tried to strengthen their position by distinguishing two different
kinds of equality: political equality and economic equality. Political equality refers to an
equal participation in, and treatment by, the means of controlling and directing the political
system. This includes equal rights to participate in the legislative process, equal civil
liberties, and equal rights to due process. Economic equality refers to equality of income
and wealth and equality of opportunity. The criticisms leveled against equality, according to
some egalitarians, only apply to economic equality and not to political equality.
Capitalists argue that a society’s benefits should be distributed in proportion to what each
individual contributes to society. According to this capitalist view of justice, when people
engage in economic exchanges with each other, what a person gets out of the exchange
should be at least equal in value to what he or she contributed. Justice requires, then, that
the benefits a person receives should be proportional to the value of his or her contribution.
Quite simply, the capitalist view is that:
“Benefits should be distributed according to the value of the contribution the
individual makes to a society, a task, a group, or an exchange.”
The main question raised by the contributive principle of distributive justice is how the
“value of the contribution” of each individual is to be measured. One long-lived tradition has
held that contributions should be measured in terms of work effort. The more effort people
put forth in their work, the greater the share of benefits to which they are entitled. The
harder one works, the more one deserves. However there are problems using effort as
the basis of distribution. First, to reward effort without concern with what the person produces
anything worthwhile, rewards incompetence and inefficiency. Second, if we reward people
solely for effort and ignore productivity, then highly productive and talented people will lose
incentive to invest their talent and productivity in producing their good for society.
A second important tradition has held that contributions should be measured in terms of
productivity. The better the quantity of a person’s contributed product, the more he or
she should receive.
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
29
A major problem with this second proposal is that it ignores people’s needs. Handicapped, ill,
untrained, and immature persons may be unable to produce anything worthwhile if people
are rewarded on the basis of their productivity. The main problem with this second proposal
is that it is difficult to place any objective measure on the value of the product in such fields as
art, entertainment, athletics, education, theology, and health care.
To deal with this, some authors have suggested a third and highly influential version of the
principle of contribution. The value of the person’s product should be determined by the
market forces of supply and demand. But to many people, the market prices are an unjust
method of evaluating the precise value of a person’s product because markets ignore the
intrinsic value of things. For example, markets reward entertainers more than doctors.
Justice Based on needs and Abilities: Socialism
The socialist dictum proposed by Louis Blanc and then (1811-1882) by Karl Marx (1818-
1883) and Nikolai Lenin (1870-1924) is traditionally taken to represent the socialist view on
distribution.
Socialists address this concern by stating that the benefits of a society should be distributed
according to need, and that people should contribute according to their abilities. The
socialist view is:
1. People realize their human potential by exercising their abilities n productive work;
therefore, work should be distributed in such a way that a person can be as
productive as possible.
2. The benefits produced through work should be to promote human happiness and well
being.
Basic to the socialist view is the notion that societies should be communities which benefits
and burdens are distributed on the model of a family.
Critics of socialism contend that workers in this system would have no incentive to work
knowing they will receive the same regardless of whether or not they work hard,
and that the principle would obliterate individual freedom.
Robert Nozick, is a leading libertarian philosopher. The libertarian view of justice is
markedly different, of course than the socialist view. Libertarians consider it wrong to tax
someone to provide benefits to someone else. No way of distributing goods can be just or
unjust apart from an individual’s free choice. Nozick suggests this principle as the basic
principle of distributive justice:
“From each according to what he chooses to do, to each according to what he
makes for himself (perhaps with the contracted aid of others) and what others
choose to do for him and choose to give him of what they’ve been given
previously (under this maxim) and haven’t yet expended or transferred.”
“If I choose to help another, that is fine, but I should not be forced to do so.” Critics of this
view point out that freedom from coercion is a value, but not necessarily the most important
value, and libertarians seem unable to prove outright that it is more important to be free
than, say, to be fed. If each person’s life is valuable, it seems as if everyone should be
cared for to some extent. A second related criticism of libertarianism claims that the
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
30