Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Political Science Difference Principle Difference Principle Every citizen aspires to obtain a just society in which to live. Some political philosophers hold differing opinions as how to reach this just society. One of the more widely accepted approaches is John Rawl's Difference Principle. To achieve a just society, Rawls believes in two principles. The first principle states that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. The second principle is that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a)reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and b) attached to positions and offices open to all (Rawls, 60). Within Rawls' second principle of justice lies the difference principle or the maximin rule. In accordance with this principle, all income and wealth is to be distributed equally unless the unequal distribution is to everyone's advantage. Rawls holds the ideal political theory. I believe that this is in fact the best principle in which we should live. When viewing justice as fairness, this outcome will be the most favorable for all parties involved. In this society everyone benefits, so even if there are slight inequalities, the end result will come out better than if there was complete equality. So for this to work, then even the least advantaged must profit from the inequalities. If anyone were hurt by these uneven wages, the principle would be found unjust. As an example, we can view a society running its economy in one of three ways. The first way would be with completely equal distribution of income. Everyone would receive $10,000 dollars a year. Since no one earns more or less than anyone else, we could view this as one option for running a just society. A second option would be completely unregulated capitalism. In this society, based on the success that the individual encounters, one could earn either an immeasurable amount, or if part of the least advantaged, could wind up with nothing. The worst possible outcome in this case would be earning no money at all. The third possibility would be based on the Difference Principle. This economy has regulated capitalism and protects the worst off. For instance, with unequal wages, some people will be earning a great deal more than others. The least advantaged will receive $20,000 dollars no matter what. So we see here, that with the Difference Principle, we still maintain the society's justice while in the same note raising the least advantaged citizen's standard of living. Therefore, not only is it a just society, but all members benefit from the unequal distribution of wealth. With this rise in income, citizens can afford more than the bare necessities. They will develop a greater capacity to save and will increase their economic growth over time. These being the facts, all members of society will eventually choose the difference principle on their own. Rawls states, "Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle" (Rawls, 302). The question now is what determines the least advantaged in a society? Rawls seems to consider them as members of the lower social class or those who have an income lower than the society's average. He also suggests that unskilled workers should be grouped with the least advantaged. Yet I feel that he fails to consider the unemployed in the development of his principle, for they would earn far below the average income. You would assume that work would have to be a condition in this theory. If one was not making an effort to become employed, I would consider it completely unjust for him still to receive a free minimum income in which others work hard to acquire. The original position, which states, "rational persons in the initial situation would chose its principles over those of the other form 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 capable of gaining wealth. At least Rawls' Difference Principle gives citizens a chance to gain wealth and a better lifestyle. Any system that promotes a better standard of living is the better one in my book. Bibliography: third year college student going to a first tiered school in new york Word Count: 1058
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.