The Difference Principle

The difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society. Rawls believes that this principle would be a rational choice for the representatives in the original position for the following reason:

Each member of society has an equal claim on their society’s goods. Natural attributes should not effect this claim, so the basic right of any individual, before further considerations are taken into account, must be to an equal share in material wealth. What, then, could justify unequal distribution? Rawls argues that inequality is acceptable only if it is to the advantage of those who are worst-off.

A further motivation for the difference principle is this. Risk-minimisation is a part of Rawls’ strategy in setting up the original position. All representatives are supposed to consider worst case scenarios, where on the lifting of the veil of ignorance they discover that they are at the bottom of society. Rawls argues that if this possibility is considered then all representatives will be concerned with ensuring the best possible circumstances for the worst-off members of society.

Is this rational? Well, if we accept the difference principle then we must prefer a situation where all suffer to a small extent to one where all except one person experience extreme pleasure, the unlucky individual undergoing slightly more hardship than the people in the first example. The difference principle implies that risk-minimisation is always the way to go, but this is simply not the case. If two people are told that, if they both consent, one will be given a large sum of money and the other will be pinched on the back of the hand, otherwise nothing will be done to either of them, then it is rational for each of them to risk the pinch. This is not to the advantage of the worst-off of the two, so is not endorsed by the difference principle.