Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T02:33:37.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Alternative Derivation of the Difference Principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2010

Nollaig MacKenzie
Nollaig MacKenzie
Affiliation:
Glendon College, York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

John Rawls' Difference Principle has been well known since his early papers on distributive justice, and has taken on renewed interest with the publication of A Theory of Justice. The principle is one I find attractive, but I am skeptical of the arguments heretofore put forward in its defence. Here I will outline an entirely different defence which, while it may yield Rawls' desired conclusion, leaves one with a rather different picture from his of the place of the Difference Principle in the theory of distributive justice.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 1974 , pp. 787 - 793
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 To avoid having this essay run to an unacceptable length, I will assume the reader's familiarity with Rawls' positions, and the arguments for them.

2 Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1971, p. 302.Google Scholar

3 The idea that the equality principle would be arrived at under the assumption of strict compliance was suggested to me by R.L. McGaw.

4 Obviously in practice the allocation would be handled by a government body of some sort.

5 Very crudely. A proper account would have to make reference to at least two matters: (a) whether the background institutions under which the criminal is living are reasonably just; and (b) a distinction must be made between cases where onés violation of a principle indicates that one does not acknowledge the principle seriously and those in which one violates, but continues to acknowledge, the principle, as when one murders in a fit of passion. But these refinements are not germane here.