John Rawls was an American philosopher in the field of politics in the 20th century, who adhered to the liberal tradition. During his activity, he introduced several theories, such as justice as fairness and political liberalism. The first mentioned one involves the difference principle, which presents an alternative distributive principle. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to describe this aspect and introduce the objection to it.
The theory of justice as fairness involves two principles; while the first one regards political constitution, the second one refers to the economic context. The latter may be divided into two parts: fair equality for the opportunity and the difference principle (Rawl, 1971). This principle is intended to regulate the income and wealth distribution in society, and addresses responsibility, power, and the respectful attitude to self (Rawl, 1971). It promotes inequality in the context of finances, which is considered to be helpful for the economic situation. For instance, jobs, which are in demand, will receive a sufficient number of workers, and people will have the possibility to compensate for their investments in education. However, John Rawls advances inequality as long as it implies advantages for the wealthy category of the population.
The argument of John Rawls for this position may be explained by his assumption that people appreciate moral powers to a large extent. The first one involves adhering to honesty and fairness during an activity of every individual, while the second one includes the determination to achieve material benefits (Rawl, 1971). Thus, the combination of fairness principle, shared by all the population, and the ability to concentrate wealth is something, which poses value for people.
John Rawls presents an opinion that people are highly likely to accept the principle, which contributes to guaranteeing their values and introduces equal basic liberties. From the philosopher’s perspective, in this regard, equality appears not to be fulfilling, comparing to the benefits associated with inequality (Rawl, 1971). In addition, John Rawls mentioned that inequality, which is more significant than the difference principles advance, does not imply benefits for people, and, consequently, they will not choose it (Rawl, 1971). Another aspect, which the philosopher discusses, regards self-respect, which consists of having the resources to achieve material benefits and recognition of an individual’s contribution (Rawl, 1971). The ones, who do not benefit society, are considered worthless.
However, the Difference Principle, introduced by John Rawls, may encounter significant critics. It should be mentioned that the philosopher does not take into consideration the assumption with people with prominent talents and hard-working nature should receive an appropriate reward. Furthermore, John Rawls believes that any social system should allow people to achieve material goods and does not imply lie, though he does not regard the fact that these values are not relevant for everybody (Rawl, 1971; Mongin & Pivato, 2019). Some people give priority to their spiritual development and self-realization instead of the concertation of wealth. Another strategy, the principle of a desert, involves the determination to encourage and reward different talents of the population, while purposing their moral powers does not present the aim (Mongin & Pivato, 2019). However, John Rawls is opposed to this opinion, claiming that individuals do not deserve talent (Rawl, 1971). People have different views on morals, philosophy, and religion, and it might be naive to persuade that all the population has the same values. Therefore, this point might present a weak side of John Rawls’s Difference Principle.
References
Mongin, P. & Pivato, M. (2019). Rawls’s Difference Principle and maximin rule of allocation: A new analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Rawl, J. (1971). A theory of justice (revised edition). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.