Rawls's Principles of Justice: The Difference Principle Explained

Introduction

Welcome back. In our last lesson, we analyzed the intricate machinery of John Rawls's thought experiment: the Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance. We saw how this "device of representation" is designed to filter out bias and model a fair choice situation, forcing rational agents to adopt an impartial perspective. The entire apparatus functions as an argumentative filter, intended to derive principles of justice that any free and equal person could endorse.

Today's lesson addresses the crucial next step: examining the output of that machine. Our learning outcome is to explain Rawls's two principles of justice, with a focus on the justification for the 'difference principle'. We will articulate the principles themselves, understand their strict ordering, and then dedicate most of our time to unpacking the controversial and highly influential second principle. This will take us to the heart of Rawls's egalitarian liberalism and its justification for a society that actively arranges its basic structure to benefit the least well-off.

1. The Two Principles of Justice

Rawls argues that parties in the Original Position, reasoning from behind the Veil of Ignorance, would unanimously agree on two fundamental principles to govern the basic structure of society.

Let's begin by watching a short video that clearly states these two principles and introduces their internal hierarchy.

Dr. Darren Staloff, John Rawl's A Theory of Justice

Dr. Darren Staloff's lecture on 'A Theory of Justice' provides a concise and accurate statement of Rawls's two principles and their lexical ordering.

About 21 minutes and 50 seconds in, please watch the two principles. Pay close attention to the precise wording of each principle and the concept of 'lexical ordering,' which establishes the absolute priority of the first principle over the second.

To formalize what you just heard, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) provides an authoritative statement of the principles.

John Rawls - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This section of the SEP article on Rawls provides the canonical formulation of the two principles and their priority rules.

Please read the beginning of the section titled '4.3 The Two Principles of Justice as Fairness.' Review the core principles, focusing on the statement of the First and Second Principles and the paragraph explaining the priority rules.

Let's consolidate this information. The two principles are:

The First Principle (The Liberty Principle): Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.
The Second Principle (The Equality Principle): Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:
a. They are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;
b. They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).

Crucially, these principles are lexically ordered. This means:

Priority of Liberty: The First Principle must be fully satisfied before we can consider the Second. We cannot trade away basic liberties (like freedom of speech or conscience) for any amount of economic gain.
Priority of Opportunity: Within the Second Principle, Fair Equality of Opportunity (2a) has priority over the Difference Principle (2b). We cannot permit unequal opportunities for some, even if it might increase the income of the least advantaged.

The First Principle is relatively uncontroversial within liberalism. Parties in the Original Position, not knowing their own conception of the good (their religion, philosophy, or life plan), would want to secure the liberties necessary to pursue any such plan. They would not risk being a member of a persecuted religious or political minority, so they secure equal basic liberties for all as their top priority.

Our main focus, however, is the more radical Second Principle.

2. Deconstructing the Second Principle: From Opportunity to Difference

The Second Principle is what defines Rawls's distinctive form of egalitarian liberalism. It attempts to regulate the justice of the social and economic inequalities that inevitably arise in a society. To understand its justification, Rawls invites us to consider a few different ways of interpreting the phrases "everyone's advantage" and "equally open."

Dr. Staloff provides an exceptionally clear analysis of four possible systems of justice that result from combining different interpretations of these phrases. This framework shows how Rawls systematically builds the case for his preferred combination: Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle.

Dr. Darren Staloff, John Rawl's A Theory of Justice

In this core segment of his lecture, Dr. Staloff walks through four potential interpretations of social justice, culminating in Rawls's 'Democratic Equality.' This is a masterclass in how Rawls builds his argument layer by layer.

Starting around the 25-minute mark, please track the progression through the four systems and the reasons why each is found wanting, leading to the next.

Let's review this crucial progression:

System of Natural Liberty (Formal Opportunity + Efficiency): This is a classical liberal or libertarian view. "Careers are open to talents," meaning no legal barriers to advancement, and the economy operates efficiently.
- Rawls's critique: This system is unjust because it allows life prospects to be determined by two morally arbitrary factors: the "social lottery" (your family's wealth and class) and the "natural lottery" (your innate talents). A person born to a wealthy family with great natural intelligence has an unearned, massive advantage.
System of Liberal Equality (Fair Equality of Opportunity + Efficiency): This is the view of many modern welfare states. It seeks to correct for the social lottery by ensuring those with similar talents and willingness to work have similar life chances, regardless of their family background. This is achieved through things like public education and anti-discrimination laws.
- Rawls's critique: This is an improvement, but it still allows the natural lottery to be the primary determinant of outcomes. It creates a "callous meritocracy" where the naturally gifted can race ahead, leaving the less talented behind, even if the social starting line was made more even.
System of Natural Aristocracy (Formal Opportunity + Difference Principle): A hypothetical system where the talented are permitted to gain more only if it benefits the less well-off, but it doesn't try to correct for the social lottery.
- Rawls's critique: This still allows the accident of birth into a privileged family to confer unfair advantages in accessing positions of influence.
System of Democratic Equality (Fair Equality of Opportunity + Difference Principle): This is Rawls's chosen system. It combines the strengths of the previous systems while mitigating their flaws.
- It uses Fair Equality of Opportunity to correct for the contingencies of the social lottery.
- It uses the Difference Principle to handle the contingencies of the natural lottery.

The Difference Principle, then, is the final and most significant piece of the puzzle. It rests on a powerful moral claim: the distribution of natural talents in a society is a matter of brute luck. No one deserves their genetic endowment. Therefore, we should regard this distribution of talents as a common asset and arrange society so that these arbitrary differences work for the good of all, especially those who were least fortunate in the natural lottery.

3. The Difference Principle in Action

The core idea of the Difference Principle is that inequalities are only justified if they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged group.

To see this logic applied, let's consider the classic illustration using a table of hypothetical economies. Your background in economics and quantitative analysis will make this intuitively clear.

John Rawls - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The SEP article on Rawls provides a clear explanation of the Difference Principle, including a table that perfectly illustrates its logic.

Read the second half of section '4.3 The Two Principles of Justice as Fairness,' starting from the discussion of the Difference Principle. Pay special attention to the table comparing Economies A, B, C, and D, and the explanation for why Economy C is chosen.

As the table shows:

Economy A (Perfect Equality): Provides the baseline. Everyone gets 10,000.
Economy B (Unequal): The least-advantaged are better off (12,000), so this is preferable to A.
Economy C (More Unequal): The least-advantaged are even better off (30,000). This is preferable to both A and B.
Economy D (Most Unequal): The rich get much richer, but the least-advantaged are now worse off than in C (only 20,000). The Difference Principle rejects this move.

The Difference Principle selects Economy C because it is the structure in which the lowest position is maximized. It allows inequalities that pull everyone up, especially the bottom, but it forbids inequalities that are gained at the expense of the worst-off.

This embodies a profound ideal of social unity and reciprocity. As Rawls puts it, in a just society, citizens "agree to share one another's fate." The talented are free to use their gifts to get ahead, but only under a system where their doing so contributes to the well-being of those who were less fortunate.

Test your understanding!

Imagine a policy proposal that would deregulate a sector of the economy. Economic models predict with high confidence that this will lead to a 5% increase in income for the top 20% of earners, a 2% increase for the middle 60%, and a 1% decrease for the bottom 20%.

How would a strict utilitarian, a libertarian (following Nozick's entitlement theory), and a Rawlsian (applying the Difference Principle) likely evaluate this policy?

Show answer

Utilitarian: A utilitarian would try to calculate the total change in social welfare (utility). Given that a large majority of the population benefits and the richest gain the most, it's highly plausible a utilitarian would approve the policy, assuming the gains in happiness for the 80% outweigh the losses for the 20%.
Libertarian: A libertarian like Nozick would largely ignore the distributive outcomes. Their primary question would be whether the policy change respects individual rights and entitlements. If the deregulation simply removes a government imposition and allows for free exchange, they would almost certainly approve it, regardless of the effect on the least advantaged.
Rawlsian: A Rawlsian would immediately reject the policy. The Difference Principle requires that inequalities benefit the least-advantaged. Since this policy makes the least-advantaged group worse off, it is unjust by definition, no matter how much it benefits other groups.

4. The Deeper Justification: Reciprocity and Stability

In the last lesson, we noted that the maximin rule was a key part of the reasoning in the Original Position. However, when arguing for the Difference Principle against more plausible alternatives—like a capitalist welfare state that guarantees a social minimum but otherwise maximizes average utility (what Rawls calls "restricted utility")—the argument becomes more nuanced.

The core arguments rely on the ideals of reciprocity, stability, and the social bases of self-respect.

The Argument for the Difference Principle and the Four Stage ...

This supplementary SEP article on the Difference Principle provides the advanced argument for why parties in the OP would prefer it to a 'mixed conception' like restricted utility.

Please read this section carefully. Scroll to the second half of the text to focus on the discussion comparing the Difference Principle to 'mixed conceptions' and the 'principle of restricted utility' in this conceptual overview. Following that, the key arguments concern reciprocity, the problem of an 'underclass,' and social stability, detailed in the subsequent arguments.

This dense but rewarding text shows that the rational choice of the Difference Principle is not just about risk-averse maximin reasoning. It's about choosing the basis for a stable, cooperative society of equals. The key points are:

A Deeper Reciprocity: Restricted utility allows the better-off to prosper at the expense of the poor, so long as a basic minimum is maintained. The Difference Principle ensures a continuous, upward reciprocity: the more advantaged only gain when the least advantaged also gain. This fosters mutual trust.
Avoiding a Demoralized Underclass: In a welfare state governed by restricted utility, the least advantaged may feel like dependents or objects of charity. They know the system is not fundamentally structured for their benefit, which can lead to resentment, cynicism, and withdrawal from public life.
Stability for the Right Reasons: The Difference Principle provides a basis for societal stability rooted in a shared sense of justice. Because the least advantaged know the system is designed to maximize their position, they can willingly affirm it. This is far more stable than a modus vivendi where the poor acquiesce out of resignation or indifference.
Publicity and Clarity: The Difference Principle provides a clear, public criterion for assessing economic institutions. This is more determinate and less prone to political manipulation than trying to calculate what would "maximize average utility" or constantly haggling over the level of the social minimum.

Conclusion

In this lesson, we have moved from the abstract machinery of the Original Position to the concrete principles it generates. We've seen that Rawls proposes a robust system of justice with a strict hierarchy of values.

Key Takeaways:

Rawls proposes two principles of justice: the Liberty Principle and the Equality Principle, with the former having absolute priority.
The Second Principle is twofold: it demands Fair Equality of Opportunity to correct for the social lottery, and the Difference Principle to ensure the effects of the natural lottery work for the benefit of all.
The Difference Principle allows inequalities only if they are to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged group. It treats the distribution of natural talents as a common asset.
The justification for the Difference Principle over other distributive schemes (like restricted utility) rests on its ability to foster a deeper reciprocity, support the self-respect of all citizens, and create a society that is stable for the right reasons.

These principles, particularly the Difference Principle, represent Rawls's attempt to give a philosophical foundation to a form of constitutional democracy that is more egalitarian than classical liberalism and more sensitive to individual rights than utilitarianism.

Preview of the next lesson:

Rawls's theory, for all its influence, sparked immediate and powerful critiques. In our next lesson, we will examine two of the most significant challenges. First, we will delve into Robert Nozick's powerful libertarian rebuttal in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which argues that the Difference Principle violates individual rights. Then, we will explore critiques from a communitarian perspective, which question the very idea of a universal, abstract theory of justice derived from an "unencumbered self."