This Is John Rawls’ Second Principle
Second Principle [1]: 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).
This Is Why the Principle Is Flawed
Both political position and economic wealth suffer from the same physical constraints: Not everyone can be in office at the same time and not everyone can be rich at the same time. These constraints are the basis of the political power and economic pyramids, which are largely parallel and mutually causal.
Therefore, “the difference principle”, which seeks to narrow such inequalities, is not a principle, but the solution to an imaginary problem (inequality) that philosophers are trying, and have been trying to solve for thousands of years.
And, it is not solved because it is unsolvable.
In other words, to narrow differences that are established by human action, is unjust, and, because it is unjust, it does not occur in reality. Even in the most perverse or virtuous of systems history has created.
“Equality of opportunity” is the only principle that can roughly be guaranteed, at least in writing. I say “roughly” because agency risk and human subjectivity makes it also impossible to achieve in its ideal form.
As to applying legal force to narrow differences, that is even counterproductive because hierarchies and asymmetry are actually conflict minimization devices [2] (which benefit all) and economic scaling enablers (for example; aviation would not be accessible to all today if it weren’t that only the rich — jet set — could enjoy it for a few decades first; the same happens with costly new medical breakthroughs).
As the second principle is flawed, as explained above, I believe John Rawls’ whole theory is broken and impractical (as seen in reality).
Further Arguments
The difference principle means to transfer a bit of what some achieved to others who didn’t to flatten inequality differentials. My argument is that what each one achieved or not is the actual just, thus justified state.
This is a simple analogy that explains it: If you have 8 runners compete in the 100 m race in the olympics, and one wins, it is just to give him the gold medal. However, if the medal is cut, where 1/3 is distributed to the other 7, that distribution is unjustified. In other words, human action was the race, and the act of achieving equality is a deviation from justice.
To seek artificial equality is to create injustice.
Rawls’ ideas in “A Theory of Justice” all generally start from flawed bases. For example, that when and where persons are born and their status are the product of a lottery, when in reality they are part of a string of genetic code that is passed on for generations. In other words, they are, most immediately, the product of their mother’s and father’s mixed DNA. It would be impossible for anyone to be born in an entirely different time and place, from different parents, with talents non-existent in their parents’ genetic code, or local mutations.
Some argue that, humans act unjustly all the time. I say, if a person is walking in the street and someone mugs him, that is illegal, and it’s fine to seek remedy in a civilized society. Mugging would be a violation of principles such as life and property, which, I agree with Rawls, should exist. That is his first principle.
As to inequality, I think I agree with him that it is natural, if that is what he meant. However, to what degree it is good or bad, is arbitrary and subjective.
For example, in the 1800s it was perfectly just for great inequalities to exist as the industrial revolution meant that everything was being invented; entrepreneurs were getting rich (justly); and products were not generally accessible to all as they had to be necessarily expensive at first to finance scale.
Today, we live and consume thousands of cheap products and services, enjoy division of labour, and we number in the billions globally due to the enormous success of that era.
Nevertheless, the great majority of philosophers regards the industrial revolution as the opposite: The symbol of greed and inequality, e.g. Marx.
This is why the search for “justice” in the specific form of “equality” in philosophy has been largely a failure, and an exercise in argumentative infinite loops and regressions.
My final example in modern times is Jeff Bezos: It is completely just that he is a near trillionaire, as he was born in a well off family, his parents sent him to good schools, worked on Wall Street, had great ideas, excellent business execution, and has provided incredibly useful products and services to his customers, who love Amazon. It would be incredibly unjust if Bezos were not in that position or if he were artificially stripped from his wealth (and incredibly destructive of basic principles as property and contract rights, as would exist in the first principle).
Whether Amazon does not pay income taxes is justified as it is part of a tax advantage programme since the 1980s that makes some investments tax deductible to compete with international markets. If those deductions are deemed bad or not justified anymore, then politicians can eliminate them, they are available to all citizens.
References
[1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – John Rawls – 4.3 The Two Principles of Justice as Fairness: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#TwoPriJusFai
[2] Donald McIntyre – Inequality is Acceptable Provided There is Justification: https://etherplan.com/2020/09/23/inequality-is-acceptable-provided-there-is-justification/12685/
Code Is Law
