m of justice", would also side with the difference principle (Rawls, 17). It shows that if having to decide between different systems, one should choose in such a way where the worst possible outcome would be better than all its alternatives. The choice that best emphasizes the maximin rule is the most rational and just choice. Rawls bases his theory on choice and accountability rather than the attributes and natural talents one is born with. That is, he defines the least advantaged based only on social and economic aspects without considering talents. Will Kymlicka believes that inequalities are beneficial to the least advantaged. They should make up for the social and economic aspects. He understands it a little differently though. "We treat people as equals by removing not all inequalities, but only those which disadvantage someone. If certain inequalities benefit everyone, by drawing out socially useful talents and energies, then they will be acceptable to everyone"(Kymlicka, 53). He says, "this does not entirely mitigate the effects of natural accident and social circumstance. For the well endowed will still get the natural good of their endowment" (Kymlicka, 72). So there could be two people with equal talents, yet one is a good businessman, the other is a lazy one. It seems as though one man would be making a profit at the others expense. But Rawls comes back to believe that although this is bad, it is the lazy person's choice to be lazy that is the factor of justice. I strongly believe that John Rawls' Difference Principle is a sound theory. I would agree with practically any situation where all parties benefit without the downfall or disadvantage of its participants. I see only good coming from this theory. In the equally distributive society, although continuing to maintain a sense of justice, it lacks in that it is more difficult for its people create savings and economic growth. Therefore, no one is really c...
