Rawls' Difference Principal arises from his attempt to formulate a Theory of Justice based on an agreement made from what he calls the 'Original Position', and it holds that the distribution of wealth, income etc. in society should be equal, unless an inequality would make everyone better off. I will firstly outline what I understand Rawls' Theory of Justice to be and then I will look in particular at the Difference Principal and examine arguments in favour of adopting it and also some criticisms of it, in particular those made by Robert Nozick. I would argue that the Difference Principal is essentially egalitarian and I will present my own arguments for rejecting it as a viable system of property distribution.
Rawls believes that justice is the underlying virtue of society and so he argues that a well ordered society must agree on a principal of justice. His idea is that a society will be just if a hypothetical contract is agreed to by rational people from an initial position of equality. This position is called the 'Original Position' and in it people are unaware of all the details about themselves that could prejudice their choice of the underlying principal of society. Hence, factors such as race, sex, age, health, ability, nationality and wealth will be unknown to someone in the Original Position. But Rawls goes even further that this and states that not only will the social standing and physical state of the person be unknown, but so will their conception of the good. That is to say that they will not be aware of their religious belief, if any, nor any form of morality which they may adhere to. The decision must be made, as Rawls puts it, from "behind a veil of ignorance" (P.12) That said, Rawls acknowledges that some concept of the good is necessary in order for a person to be able to make such a decision. Therefore he stipulates that people must have a 'thin theory of the good'; that is to say that they know they want the primary goods (which Rawls defines as liberty, opportunities and wealth) and they want more rather than fewer of these. I would dispute this claim because there are many people who believe that it is actually detrimental to one's well being to have too much of any one good. For instance there are many people who would rather be comfortably off than be extremely rich, and even people who would rather be poor than rich. They are also 'mutually disinterested', that is to say they take no interest one way or the other in the plight of other people.
Having set out the conditions of the 'Original Position' Rawls then argues that everyone in such a position would agree on his two principals of justice, namely:
(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others (The Liberty Principal)
(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
(a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage (The Difference Principal)
(b) attached to positions and offices open to all.
According to the Difference Principal then, injustice for Rawls would be inequality which is not to the benefit of all. This to me seems to be an unjustified claim because I would argue, along the lines of Nozick, that maintaining equality unless inequality is beneficent to all impinges upon people's liberty. I will return to this idea a bit later.
To clarify Rawls' Difference Principal then, I would state it thus:
The distribution of wealth and income in society should be equal, unless an inequality will be to everyone's advantage.
I would firstly make the point that this is a stronger claim than merely saying that the distribution should be equal in all cases where inequality would be a considerable disadvantage to some. Rawls seems to be claiming that inequality is only justified when positive benefits to all can be seen. I would argue that this is simply not the case. Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example illustrates this claim in as much as a state of equality progresses to a state of inequality by purely voluntary actions. Presumably Rawls would claim that the resulting distribution is unjust, but I fail to see how that can be so. I do not think Rawls argues convincingly as to how it is unjustified to act voluntarily so as to change the distribution of wealth.
Another argument that could be employed against Rawls' Difference Principal is this. Not all people get the same amount of utility out of the same amount of goods. So distributing wealth equally would not insure the equal well being of all members of society. Rawls argues that his distribution is fair and yet it seems unfair that some people could make so with less, whereas some would be much happier with more. Rawls does not seem to account for the distribution to be adapted in the light of different people's propensity to achieve satisfaction from goods.
Jonathan Wolff raises another objection to the Difference Principal on the grounds that there would be no incentive to work hard and achieve that best you can under an egalitarian set up. Indeed it would seem unfair in the extreme if one person worked very hard and another was bone idle and yet they both had the same quantity of goods. It seems to me that desert plays an important part in the distribution of goods. Rawls seems to discriminate against those who work hard to develop their talents. Indeed it seem to me that those who work harder than others deserve more reward for their efforts. It would seem that under Rawls' system you would not 'reap what you sow'. I would also argue that it is not what you start with that is most important, but what you do with what you have that counts.
Wolff goes on to consider whether Rawls' two principals would in fact be chosen by someone in the Original Position. He examines various theories of rational choice and shows that a rational choice can be made using various different systems, yielding a different, but equally valid, outcome. It can be conceded that Rawls' Original Position is unique in that it is a one-off, irreversible choice, and therefore certain choice mechanisms would not be employed by a rational person (such as the maximax principal) However, I do not think that Rawls can effectively show that the maximin principal would always be employed from behind the veil of ignorance, which is what he must do in order to show that his Difference Principal would always be chosen.
© Anne Witton 1996. No part of this article may be copied without my permission.
