What Does Wilt Chamberlain Owe to Society?

This article argues that Robert Nozick’s reasoning in his famous example of Wilt Chamberlain (Nozick 1974) is more convincing than is usually assumed. Specifically, the present article addresses two common types of criticism launched against this philosophical contribution and finds them both wanting. First is the argument that Wilt owes society on account of using social infrastructure. Second is the Rawlsian argument that laissez-faire capitalism cannot eliminate the influence of morally arbitrary factors on economic distribution. The first argument faces a web of difficult economic and philosophical puzzles. The second attributes to the redistributive remedies for market inequalities a feature that they do not have: namely, the ability to eliminate morally arbitrary factors from the distribution of goods and opportunities.