In defending the difference principle, rawls argues that straightforward equality of opportunity is not sufficient to achieve social justice as it overlooks inequality in the distribution of natural talent and endowments. What are the implications of rawls' position for educational provision?
Answers
Rawls’s Second Principle of justice requires that if some people in society have
more wealth, income, and/or power than others, then first, those goods are the rewards for
social positions they occupy that are open to all under the terms of “fair equality of
opportunity,” and second, giving the occupants of those positions greater benefits is in the
long run better for the worst off members of society. The second part of this principle is
called the “difference principle” (DP). Let’s take a closer look at it.
According to DP, an inequality in the distribution of wealth or income is unjust
whenever it doesn’t benefit the poorest members of society. DP requires a system of
distributing wealth and income that over time is in the best interests of the worst off
members of society. Suppose there are only three people, and they have to choose between
the following distributions of yearly income:
Carol Ted Bob
1. 110 100 90
2. 100 100 100
Both the principle of equality and the difference principle say that 2 is better than 1.
However, suppose that the choice is not between 1 and 2, but 1 and 3, where 3 is:
3. 87 86 85
The principle of equality tells us that 3 is better, because it’s more equal. Here DP
disagrees, telling us that 1 is better, because Bob, the worst off person under both
distributions, is better off under 1 than 3. A rationally self-interested Bob should prefer 1,
because he’s better off under it than he is under 3. The fact that Carol and Ted have a lot
more wealth under 1 shouldn’t bother him. If it does, then he is motivated by something other than self-envy