Robert Nozick illustrates his argument against Rawls' conception of thedistribution if wealth through an example concerning the basketball playerWilt Chamberlain. In the example, Nozick asks us to conceive a society thatcounts as a perfectly just according to Rawls' principles. Subsequently Nozickasks us to imagine that Wilt Chamberlain earns $250.000 through the sale oftickets for his games. Concerning this situation, Nozick writes:If the people were entitled to dispose of the resources to whichthey were entitled (under D1), didn't this include their beingentitled to give it to, or exchange it with, Wilt Chamberlain?Can anyone [other than Wilt Chamberlain and the customers]complain on grounds of justice? Each person already has hislegitimate share under D1. Under D2 there is nothing that anyonehas that anyone else has a claim of justice against.What point does Nozick make in these passages?

Then try StudyFetch, the AI-powered platform that can answer your questions and teach you more about it!