The Significance of the Difference Principle - Essay Example

 The Significance of the Difference Principle Procedural justice can be achieved only by setting up and administering a just system of institutions. When the law and Government act effectively together to ensure that the free market is kept competitive, resources fully employed, property distributed among a range of individuals and that everyone has access to a reasonable social minimum, this will promote justice (Rawls, 2005:87). While Rawls supports equality of opportunity in that it allows society’s assets and benefits to be distributed to everyone, he believes that this will not necessarily ensure that those who are better off through this process will be so in a manner that also works out to the advantage of those less fortunate. (Rawls, 2005:75). Hence, it will not necessarily ensure that there is justice. By incorporating the difference principle however, Rawls (2005) argues that initial differences can be justified and justice can be achieved because ultimately, the person who is less advantaged derives some benefits by drawing others less advantaged into positions that are better off. Equality of opportunity opens up offices and opportunities to everyone, but Rawls’ major objection is that this is done on the basis of a lottery, which does not address the already existing inequalities between applicants. While equality of opportunity distributes positions on the basis of merit, it does not necessarily ensure that all individuals in the first place, have a reasonable opportunity to acquire the skills on the basis of which such merit is assessed. As a result, the distribution of society’s resources occurs on a random basis, which may not necessarily be just, especially because it fails to take into account social and economic inequalities that may already exist. Rawls demonstrates this through the example of members in the entrepreneurial class, who start off in society in a better position as compared to those who begin as unskilled laborers. How can such an initial inequality in starting be justified? It may be justifiable however, through the application of the difference principle, “only if the difference in expectation is to the advantage of the representative man who is worse off, in this case the representative unskilled worker.” (Rawls, 2005:78). For example, when the entrepreneurs are allowed to exist in society in their elevated positions, they are able to generate work opportunities for others, namely the unskilled laborers, who would be worse off if such inequality was not allowed to exist, because they would not then have access to the job opportunities that are being created for them. The difference principle allows a higher level of expectations for the entrepreneurial class because they are then encouraged to take business risks which may improve the long term prospects of the laboring class. One of the reasons why Rawls supports the difference principle is that it “gives some weight to the considerations singled out by the principle of redress.” (Rawls, 2005: 100). The principle of redress calls for inequalities that are undeserved, such as inequalities in birth and endowment, to be compensated for in some manner. This principle holds that if true equality of opportunity is to be provided and all persons are to be treated equally, then society needs to devote more time, attention and effort towards those who are born with “fewer native assets” and into the “less favorable social positions.” (Rawls, 2005:100). Society must ensure that people who are victims of such inequalities receive better opportunities – this would help to ensure that to some measure, the inequalities with which individuals have started out are balanced out, so they can compete on a more equitable basis with those who have started out with more advantages. Redressing inequalities is one of the important elements associated with the conception of justice and the difference principle aids in the achievement of such justice, because it regulates distribution of society’s assets in such a manner that the less advantaged have higher levels of access to them and their long term expectations are improved. Rawls proposes that the basic structure of social and economic institutions may be arranged in such a way that the influence of social contingencies is arranged to work for the benefit of the least fortunate members of society. On an overall basis, differences cannot be eliminated and pure equality cannot be achieved in practice. But the difference principle provides a rationale to explain those instances when allowing the more advantaged man to benefit is likely to improve the position of the less advantaged individuals and is therefore desirable, such as the example of entrepreneurs cited earlier. When equality of opportunity is associated with the difference principle, it means that higher expectations for some qualified individuals is acceptable in view of the greater service that can be received by less advantaged individuals when one of those more advantaged job applicants is hired. It also means that those who have been “favored by nature” may gain from that fortune only when they can improve the situation of others not similarly blessed, by using those endowments in a manner that helps the less fortunate.(Rawls, 2005:101) The difference principle does not necessarily require “society to try to even out handicaps”, but it could well require the allocation of educational resources for example, in such a manner “as to improve the long term expectancies of the least favored.” (Rawls, 2005:101). While it may not be desirable for anyone to gain a more favorable starting place in society based upon their greater natural capacity achieved through others, at the same time, the existence of such differences is desirable, because it ensures that the best talents and skills of society are applied in those areas where they are likely to be of greatest benefit. The difference principle is a maximizing principle because it can adjust expectations until it reaches the point where no further change in the expectations of “those better off can improve the situation of those worse off.” (Rawls, 2005: 78). The extent to which a system or arrangement can be unjust depends upon how “excessive the higher expectations are and to what extent they depend upon the violation of the other principles of justice.” (Rawls, 2005:79). Based on the above, it can thus be seen that when any scheme or arrangement, including equality of opportunity is associated with the difference principle, it is more likely to arrive at a just outcome, because this principle ensures that the expectations of the more advantaged in society are balanced by the requirement that they also benefit the person who is worse off, or at least ensure that his current position is improved and not worsened. Rawls argues that the difference principle is egalitarian, because it is acceptable both to the more advantaged man as well as the less favored man. The principle expresses a “conception of reciprocity” and is based upon “mutual benefit.” (Rawls, 2005: 102). Conditions in society such as aristocracy or caste and class will only tend to exacerbate the inequalities between people and thereby resulting in more injustice. But when there are institutions, laws and systems in place through political, social and economic establishments to ensure that the influence of social contingencies works in favor of those members of society who enjoy the least advantages, then it will be accepted also by the less advantaged. The less advantaged man can accept others’ being better off if by virtue of their improved position, they are also able to enhance the prospects of the less advantaged man. In effect, if some individuals were not allowed to maintain their more favored position in society, then the less advantaged individuals would be even worse off than what they already are. One important point that Rawls makes is that it is necessary to establish a system that will be accepted by all, the less advantaged as well as those more favored; systems must be egalitarian if they are to be acceptable to everyone and this is where the difference principle is useful. The real difficulty in this instance is to also convince those individuals who are in a better position in society to accept a situation where they may need to have less than what they can have by virtue of their natural advantages. As Rawls points out, “some will think that the person with greater natural endowments deserves those assets and the superior character that made their development possible.” (Rawls, 2005:103). But Rawls rebuts this argument by pointing out that certain individuals could have acquired such advantages through “fortunate family and social circumstances over which he can claim no credit.” (Rawls, 2005: 104). Therefore, this cannot be a basis to support the position that such advantages which have not been earned should be allowed predominance in the allocation of resources and benefits. Rawls also believes that not even those individuals with natural abilities for which they deserve full credit, should be entitled to a greater share of society’s resources. Rather, the well being of each and every individual in society, both the more and less privileged, depends upon “a scheme of social cooperation without which no one could have a satisfactory life.” (Rawls, 2005:103). It is the difference principle that helps ensure a more or less egalitarian society. One of the arguments that could be offered against this principle that is the institutions of society are inherently unjust and will always be defective because the contingencies of social circumstance are likely to always be unjust. But this cannot be accepted as a valid argument because then it becomes an excuse to condone injustices and to turn a blind eye to them, on the grounds that they will inevitably exist. As Rawls puts it, the natural distribution and the natural position of individuals in society is “neither just nor unjust” but are “simply natural facts.” (Rawls, 2005:102). Social institutions can certainly be restructured or modified to deal in a better way with these natural facts; hence there is no reason to become resigned to the inequalities and on this basis, fail to take any action to make them more equitable and just. Those arguing against the difference principle in applying equality of opportunity could also contend that the goal of equality of opportunity is to ensure that all individuals are treated equally and no injustices and inequalities of any sort can be tolerated. But in view of the arguments that have been provided above, equality of opportunity can at best try to address some of those inequalities that arise out of no fault of the individual, but are imposed upon him by his class or social position and thereby introduce more justice. Differences may however, be beneficial in some instances in bringing about improvements in the condition of the less advantaged man, because if such difference was not allowed to exist, the position of the less advantaged man would worsen. Bibliography * Rawls, John. “A Theory of Justice” Harvard University Press, 2005. Read More