The Philosophy Club
Rawls’s Theory of Justice

Introduction

     We all care deeply about fairness and justice.  Children even as young as three have a very acute sense of what’s fair and what’s not.  Justice (or injustice) is characteristic of laws, institutions, social systems, policies as well as particular actions and decisions.  In his book  “A Theory of Justice” the American philosopher John Rawls has produced the most influential theory of justice in recent times.  His theory is about “social justice”.  Thus he is not concerned with the justice of particular laws, policies and decisions but rather,

The question which Rawls asks is this:  How are the benefits or advantages that a society produces to be distributed?  These benefits are such things as rights, powers, freedoms, economic benefits and so on.  What counts as a just or fair distribution?  In order to answer these questions Rawls proposes two principles of justice which together form the heart of his theory.

The two principles of justice

(1)  Each person is to have equal right to the most extensive system of equal basic liberties compatible with a  similar system for all.

(2)  Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
 (a)  to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged,
 (b)  attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair
       equality of opportunity.

I’m going to concentrate on (2)(a) which  Rawls calls the  “Difference Principle”.  What does this principle mean and what is the reasoning which supports it?  The principle means that economic inequalities - inequalities in wealth and income - may be just, so long as those who are least well off would be even worse off if the inequalities were removed.  Here’s an illustration.  Consider the two following distributions of different amounts of money among three people A, B and C.

         DISTRIBUTION(1)                                              DISTRIBUTION(2)

A B C  A  B C
$500 $500 $500  $1000 $800 $700
 

Imagine that A, B and C have $1500 to be shared among them and it is distributed as in (1).  Now A tells B and C that the $1500 can be increased to $2500 by clever investment but the new amount must be now be distributed as in (2).  According to the difference principle, (2) is a fair distribution because the least well off under (2), C, is better off than under (1), even though (1) is an equal distribution and (2) is not.  Thus, according to Rawls’s difference principle, inequalities in the distribution of benefits may be just if the inequalities are to the greatest advantage of the least well off.  Rawls’s theory is egalitarian as it emphasises the equality of liberty, opportunity and, by means of the difference principle, recognises inequalities but attempts to minimise their effect.
              So that, fairly briefly, is what the difference principle is.  But why believe it?

The argument for the difference principle

          The argument for the principles of justice is based on what Rawls calls the “original position”.  Imagine a fairly large group of people establishing a community, perhaps in a newly discovered territory - much like the Pilgrims who sailed on the Mayflower and settled on the east coast of North America.  This group, we suppose, has to set up a political constitution for their society more or less from nothing.  This constitution will establish basic rights, duties and determine how social and economic benefits are to be divided.  It is this purely hypothetical situation which Rawls calls the “original position”.  There are two basic assumptions.  Firstly, the people in the original position are self interested and rational.  They are concerned only with doing the best for themselves and, being rational, will tend to act in such a way which will in fact promote their best interests - they want to further their interests and will act appropriately in the light of this aim.  The second assumption concerns what Rawls calls the “veil of ignorance”.  Here’s what he says:

So the basic idea is this:  we imagine a group of rational, self interested people choosing the fundamental principles governing the political, social and economic structure of their society.  However, because the original position has been specially designed so that people are forced to choose impartially, the principles thus chosen will be, Rawls claims, principles of justice.  In other words, choosing behind a veil of ignorance guarantees that the principles chosen in the original position are in fact basic principles of justice.
             It is important to understand here that the idea is not that certain principles are chosen because they are just, but rather that they are just because they are chosen.  Here’s an example:  Consider the principle concerning the division of economic benefits “Whites should get more than blacks”.  This couldn’t be chosen in the original position but not, as you might think, because it’s morally wrong, evil, racist and discriminatory.  It couldn’t be chosen - and hence is not a principle of justice -  because it’s irrational. If you are choosing basic principles behind a veil of ignorance it is simply irrational to choose principles which favour whites and discriminate against blacks, because you don’t know whether you’re white or black.   So if you’re out to do the best for yourself, and don’t know whether you’re white or black, then you had better not choose principles which may turn out to discriminate against you.  Thus, to repeat, the original position creates a situation where the choosers are forced to choose impartially.  Therefore whichever principles it is rational to choose under these circumstances are, as a result, basic principles of justice.  According to Rawls, the question  “What are the basic principles of justice?”  is answered once we answer the question  “What principles would be chosen by rational choosers in the original position?”
              As mentioned earlier, Rawls proposes two principles of justice.  Consider now the difference principle in more detail.  How can it be justified in the original position?  Why would a rational and self interested person in the original position choose it?  The answer to this lies in the principle of  “maximin”.

 “The maximin rule tells us to rank alternatives by their worst possible outcomes:
 we are to adopt the alternative the worst outcome of which is superior to the worst
 outcomes of the others.”  (p.153)

Maximin is a rule for choice under uncertainty.  If you are choosing between alternatives A, B and C in circumstances where your information is severely restricted, then the maximin rule says:  Look at the consequences of A, B and C and then choose the one whose worst consequence is better than the others.  The following table illustrates the use of maximin.

            The maximin rule tells us to choose C
                                                             since its worst consequence, losing $20,
                                                             is better than the worst consequences of
                                                             both A and B.

The rule is, then, to make decisions in the light of the worst that can happen.
           Why is maximin the best strategy in the original position?  Because, according to Rawls, the original position is one of high risk, where the various parties in it know nothing about probabilities and where those choosing are concerned only with getting the bare minimum.   Choosing from behind a veil of ignorance is risky and uncertain.  And since the parties are choosing those principles which will determine their life prospects once and for all, there is a lot at stake.  Having little information to go on the best policy is to choose a guaranteed minimum.  A higher risk strategy may be OK when gambling or playing the stock market.  It’s a different story, however, when it’s a matter of your life prospects.  When you’ve got a lot to lose, don’t have much information to go on, then it’s a case of better safe than sorry.  Maximin is the best way.
                  Finally, the connection between maximin and the difference principle is fairly clear.  When choosing principles governing the distribution of economic benefits such as wages and income, and burdens such as taxation then inequalities may be to the advantage of the least well off and are justified only to this extent.  We can now see that the difference principle is simply a particular application of the general rule of maximin which governs rational choice under uncertainty.  Maximin says to choose the alternative with the least worst outcome.  In the original position this comes down to choosing the difference principle, where  “ worst outcome” is to be understood as  “those who are least advantaged”.  So the least worst outcome is in these circumstances that principle which is to the advantage of the least well off - i.e. the difference principle.

Some consequences and questions

 (1)     According to the difference principle, inequalities may be justified but only if they are to the advantage of the least well off.  Now, obviously there are vast inequalities in people’s natural talents and abilities, for example in intelligence, sporting prowess, musical talents and so on.  According to Rawls,

Thus, the difference principle recognises inequalities of natural gifts and talents.  The point is that society ought to be arranged so that the naturally gifted and talented benefit in way that works to the good of those who are least well off.
          What do you think about this?  How might it work in practice?  Is our society arranged in that way?  Should it be?

(2)   Shane Warne:  The American philosopher Robert Nozick has objected to Rawls’s theory of justice.  He claims that egalitarian theories like Rawls’s can be defeated by voluntary agreements.  For example, suppose people like to watch Shane Warne bowl and are prepared to pay extra in addition to the price of the ticket, the extra going to Warne (Nozick actually used a different example).  As a result of this voluntary transfer of money Warne becomes very rich.  According to Nozick there is nothing wrong with this and that Warne is perfectly entitled to his riches.  The problem for Rawls is that principles like the difference principle which attempt to minimise inequalities are vulnerable to the sort of voluntary agreement in the example.  Warne has a great natural talent and is, according to Nozick, entitled to the wealth which this talent can bring him.  Rawls, on the other hand, argues that natural talent is a matter of luck and the inequalities which arises is subject to the difference principle - Warne is entitled to become rich only if this is to the benefit of the least advantaged.  Who’s right, Rawls or Nozick?

References
1. J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice.
2.  R. Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia.
                                                                                              R. Neurath


Home / School Information / Calendar / Sporting Fixtures / Departments / Academic Achievements
Academic Extension / Clubs / SGS Press / Internet Links


Sydney Grammar School. College Street, Darlinghurst. 2010. NSW
Phone: (02) 9332-5800  Fax: (02)9331-5164   Email:  mailto:sgslib@fl.net.au?subject=SGS Home Page
Updated: 25 August 1999   Webmaster: J.A. Stitt   http://www.sydgram.nsw.edu.au