What Is the Difference Principle?

Question

What is the difference principle, and why is it the most distinctive feature of John Rawls's theory of justice? The question arises because the difference principle offers a middle ground between strict equality and unlimited inequality that has been attacked from both directions.

Quick Answer

The difference principle holds that social and economic inequalities are just only if they work to the advantage of the least advantaged members of society. It does not require perfect equality — inequality can be justified if it creates incentives that improve productivity and raise the position of the worst off. But it does not permit inequality that simply benefits the already advantaged, no matter how much total wealth it produces. The difference principle is chosen, Rawls argues, by rational parties behind the veil of ignorance who do not know their position in society and therefore adopt a conservative, risk-averse strategy: they maximize the minimum.

Historical Wisdom

The difference principle is Rawls's alternative to utilitarianism, which dominated Anglo-American political philosophy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Utilitarianism permits inequality if it maximizes total happiness, even if it leaves the worst off in terrible conditions. Rawls argues that the parties in the original position would reject this: they would not gamble that they might be among the fortunate few. The difference principle is also an alternative to strict egalitarianism, which Rawls rejects because it ignores the question of incentives.

The difference principle is grounded in the idea that the distribution of natural talents and social advantages is morally arbitrary. No one deserves to be born with greater talents or into more favorable circumstances. Therefore, Rawls argues, the benefits of these arbitrary advantages belong to the community as a whole, and can be retained by the talented only if their retention benefits everyone, especially the least advantaged.

Philosophical Perspectives

The difference principle has been criticized from multiple directions. Robert Nozick argues that it violates liberty: taxing the talented to benefit the less advantaged is a form of forced labor. The talented are entitled to the fruits of their labor, and the state has no right to redistribute them. Nozick's 'Wilt Chamberlain' example illustrates the point: if people freely choose to pay a star athlete, the resulting inequality is just.

Egalitarians criticize the difference principle from the left. If the worst off can be made slightly better off by allowing the rich to become vastly richer, the difference principle permits it. To many egalitarians, this is insufficiently egalitarian. They argue for a more demanding principle of equality.

Libertarians and conservatives argue that the principle is too demanding. They question whether the least advantaged are entitled to the benefits of the talents of the more productive. They also argue that the principle is difficult to apply in practice: how do we measure who is least advantaged, and what counts as benefiting them?

Lessons From Thinkers

From Rawls: the distribution of natural talents is morally arbitrary, and the benefits of those talents should be shared with the least advantaged. From Nozick: the difference principle may violate the rights of the talented. From the egalitarians: the difference principle permits too much inequality. From the conservatives: the difference principle is too demanding and hard to apply. From all of them: the difference principle is the central battleground in contemporary debates about distributive justice.

Practical Application

The difference principle provides a framework for evaluating economic policies. Progressive taxation, social welfare programs, public education, and universal healthcare can be defended as instruments for benefiting the least advantaged. Tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and austerity can be criticized if they fail to benefit the worst off. The difference principle does not dictate specific policies, but it provides a standard for evaluating them: do they improve the position of the least advantaged?