Comment in 150 words·: ‘Difference Principle’ in Rawls’ Theory of Justice. (2015, 10 Marks)
The difference principle is clause (a) of John Rawls‘s second principle in A Theory of Justice (1971): social and economic inequalities must be “to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle”. It governs chiefly income and wealth. It does not demand equality; it demands that every inequality justify itself to those at the bottom.
Why Rawls adopts it
- Natural lottery: talents and birth are “neither just nor unjust”, so the principle treats the distribution of talents “as a common asset“.
- Maximin: behind the veil of ignorance, parties who might end up worst off choose the arrangement with the highest floor.
- Fraternity: no one wants “greater advantages unless this is to the benefit of others who are less well off”.
Its place in the system
Ranked lexically, equal basic liberty comes first, fair equality of opportunity second and the difference principle last. Material shares are thus not the only thing distributed: access to offices must be genuinely fair before income is arranged, so exclusion cannot be bought off with transfers. Just savings protects future generations.
What it permits and forbids
- Permits: incentive inequalities — higher pay for doctors or entrepreneurs — if they raise the floor above what equal division would give.
- Forbids: gains to the better-off that leave the worst-off no better off.
In practice it supports progressive taxation, a social minimum and public education; the Restatement (2001) prefers property-owning democracy, spreading capital beforehand, to welfare-state capitalism’s after-the-fact transfers.
Critiques
- Utilitarians: it maximises the minimum, not total welfare, and can forgo large aggregate gains for small ones at the bottom.
- Robert Nozick: a patterned principle that treats goods as manna from heaven and overrides self-ownership and entitlement to one’s assets.
- G. A. Cohen: if the talented truly accepted it, they would not demand the incentives it is used to justify.
- Amartya Sen: a primary-goods index misidentifies the worst-off, since people convert resources into functionings differently.
Interpretation and application
Who the “least advantaged” are is itself contested; Rawls suggests the representative unskilled worker, or those below half the median income and wealth. Indian jurisprudence applies the principle within beneficiary groups: the creamy layer of Indra Sawhney (1992) and the Scheduled Caste sub-classification permitted in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) steer benefits to the most disadvantaged.
Conclusion
The difference principle is Rawls’s most original idea, making inequality answerable to the worst-off rather than to desert or aggregate utility. Cohen shows it tolerates more inequality than its fraternal rationale warrants, and its measure remains disputed; its lasting value is as a test every distribution must pass.