Would you rather be poor in a poor society or poor in a rich society?
In the four hypothetical economies A to D below, the difference principle selects Economy C because it is the income distribution where the least-advantaged group does best.
|
Economy |
Least-Advantaged Group |
Middle Group |
Most-Advantaged Group |
|
|
A |
10,000 |
10,000 |
10,000 |
|
|
B |
12,000 |
30,000 |
80,000 |
|
|
C |
30,000 |
90,000 |
150,000 |
|
|
D |
20,000 |
100,000 |
500,000 |
|
The inequalities in economy C are to everyone’s advantage relative to equal division (Economy A), and a more equal division (Economy B).
The difference principle does not allow the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor in Economy D.
Under the difference principle, a smaller share of a bigger pie might be better than an equal share of a smaller pie.
There is no good reason for the poor to shoot themselves in the foot by demanding equality, when inequality would serve them better. Robert Nozick said that:
Political philosophers must now either work within Rawls’s theory or explain why not.
Central to the difference principle is natural talents and endowments are undeserved because they are accidents of birth.
A citizen does not merit more of the social product simply because she was lucky enough to be born with gifts that are in great demand.
The fact that citizens have different talents and abilities can be used to make everyone better off.
In a society governed by the difference principle, those better endowed with talents are welcome to use their gifts to make themselves better off, so long as they also contribute to the good of those less well endowed.
“In justice as fairness,” Rawls says, “men agree to share one another’s fate.”
For Nozick, as long as economic inequalities arise from voluntary exchange, they cannot be unjust. Nozick was content to establish the rules of the game and let the legal moves by individual players determine social outcomes.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments