In John Rawls’ theory of justice, the principle of difference allows for inequality, but is only justified if that inequality improves the situation of the disadvantaged. This principle, chosen under a veil of ignorance, emphasizes that the level of inequality can be tolerated up to the point where it is in the best interest of the disadvantaged.
What is John Rawls’s view of the principle of differentiation?
John Rawls called justice the first virtue of social institutions. No matter how efficient and orderly a law or system may be, if it is unjust, it should be improved or abolished. Every person has inviolable rights based on justice that cannot be violated, even in the name of the welfare of society as a whole. In a just society, therefore, equal civil liberties are considered already guaranteed, and the rights guaranteed by justice are not subject to any political bargain or social advantage.
Although society is a cooperative for mutual benefit, there are conflicts as well as coincidences of interests, which is why the principle of social justice is necessary. These principles determine how the benefits and burdens of social cooperation are appropriately distributed.
John Rawls on justice: justice as fairness
While we understand freedom and equality as opposing and polarizing concepts, John Rawls built a theoretical foundation that does not exclude either principle. By theoretical foundation, we mean that it focuses not on equality as an outcome, but rather on the process and form that leads to that outcome.
First Principle of Justice – The Principle of Equality
It is not justifiable to take away the freedom of the few for the greater good of the many, nor to force the few to sacrifice for the greater good of the many. This definition rejects the logic of utilitarianism. The fundamental freedoms of individuals include political freedoms such as the right to vote or not to vote, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of conscience and thought, bodily liberty, and private property rights.
Second Principle of Justice – The Principle of Difference: The Principle of Difference
Social and economic inequalities, such as inequalities in property and power, are acceptable, but are considered justifiable if they bring benefits to everyone, especially the least advantaged in society, that compensate for the inequality. In other words, it is not unjust if a minority (the strong) gain a greater advantage, but the situation of the weak is improved as a result. Injustice is only tolerable if it is necessary to avoid a greater injustice.
Second Principle of Justice – The Principle of Difference: Equal Opportunity
Inequalities based on differences in talent should be recognized, as long as there is equal opportunity for preferential positions or status. Also, if everyone is given a fair chance to attain a high position or title, there is no injustice in having differential positions based on ability and effort.
These principles of justice are chosen under the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is a very important condition of the prima facie case, and a constraint on the parties to the contract to ensure purely procedural justice. To add to the explanation of the primal position, John Rawls’s two principles of justice are a natural outgrowth of the primal position. Thus, the primal position is both the condition under which the two principles of justice arise and the condition that ethically justifies the two principles of justice. It is a concept and a purely hypothetical situation to explain our moral judgment and sense of justice. The content of the veil of ignorance is that the parties to the agreement do not know their social status or hierarchical position, and no one knows what aptitudes, abilities, intelligence, physical strength, etc. they are naturally endowed with. In defining our initial position, we consider whether the principles of justice to be chosen are consistent with our deliberated beliefs about justice, and if they are not consistent with our deliberated judgment, we must make a choice. We may need to change our initial description of the situation, or revise our original judgment, because our tentative anchor point may also change. Through this process of adjustment, we find an explanation of the initial situation that is consistent with our deliberated judgment, which John Rawls called a state of reflective equilibrium. It is an equilibrium because our principles and judgment are ultimately consistent with each other, and it is reflective because we know the principles our judgment will follow and the preconditions from which it will be derived.
The principle of differentiation
Social or natural chance plays a role in determining our distributive share. In other words, some people have a better starting point than others, depending on the amount of wealth they inherit or their abilities and talents. In response to the economic and social inequalities created by this moral arbitrariness, John Rawls did not see enforced equality as a solution, but instead proposed the principle of differentiation as an alternative. The principle of difference is a philosophical principle that suggests the extent to which such inequalities can be justified. According to the principle of differentiation, inequality can only be justified if it improves the situation of those who are disadvantaged. In other words, inequalities that can be justified by the principle of differentiation are allowed only to the extent that they maximize the improvement of the situation of the disadvantaged. As the permitted inequality increases, the benefits to the disadvantaged increase more and more, and then the benefits to the disadvantaged peak at the maximum permissible inequality level, beyond which the share of the disadvantaged begins to decrease again.
– Below the maximum acceptable level of inequality: As inequality increases, the share of the socially powerful improves the situation of the socially disadvantaged by an increasing amount.
– Above the maximum acceptable level of inequality: The amount of improvement in the situation of the socially disadvantaged is maximized.
– Inequality above the maximum acceptable level of inequality: The efficiency of activities that improve the situation of the socially disadvantaged begins to decrease.
