question archive Which of the following best characterizes the difference between Locke and Nozick on the issue of unalienable rights? a) Nozick thinks that I own myself, and that this means I may do whatever I want with myself — including, for instance, selling myself into slavery
Which of the following best characterizes the difference between Locke and Nozick on the issue of unalienable rights? a) Nozick thinks that I own myself, and that this means I may do whatever I want with myself — including, for instance, selling myself into slavery
Subject:ManagementPrice:2.87 Bought7
Which of the following best characterizes the difference between Locke and Nozick on the issue of unalienable rights?
a) Nozick thinks that I own myself, and that this means I may do whatever I want with myself — including, for instance, selling myself into slavery. Locke agrees, but warns that selling myself into slavery is unlikely to make me happy.
b) Nozick thinks that I own myself, and that this means I may do whatever I want with myself — including, for instance, selling myself into slavery. Locke disagrees. He thinks there are certain rights that I may not alienate, no matter how badly I might want to.
c) Nozick, as a libertarian, thinks that my right to liberty is the most important right, and so I could never alienate my liberty for any reason. Locke, on the other hand, thinks I can alienate my liberty for the purpose of protecting my life and property.
d) Both Nozick and Locke admit that there are unalienable rights. They disagree only about which ones are unalienable.
e) Nozick thinks that because our rights are a gift from God, we could never alienate them. Locke thinks we should sometimes alienate them, since they were given to us by God to use as we please.
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
Answer:
b) Nozick thinks that I own myself, and that this means I may do whatever I want with myself — including, for instance, selling myself into slavery. Locke disagrees. He thinks there are certain rights that I may not alienate, no matter how badly I might want to.
It is necessary to note that for Locke, the unalienable rights, for instance the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are absolute or inherent per se, while for Nozick they may be given away by its possessor because for Nozick, the unalienable rights (natural rights) are individual properties i.e. one can do whatever he wants with them. Locke argues that everyone is entitled the natural rights such as right to life, right to own property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. However, for Locke, everyone is entitled the right to life since it is a natural right - it is intrinsic. On the other hand, for Nozick, one has the absolute right to sell anything including one's precious life, liberty rights, labor or pursuit of happiness at the market price. Therefore, if natural rights are properties (according to Nozick), they are alienable or subject to giveaway (bargain) for a market value.
