Political Philosophy Lecture 6 …

                    Political Philosophy Lecture 6
                      The Difference Principle

                                Christopher Bertram



                                 November 17, 2004




The basic idea
he of¢il nonil formultion of the differene prinipleD s wls sttes it in xRT of
e heory of tustie is oil nd eonomi inequlities re to e rrnged so tht they
re F F F to the gretest ene¢t of the lest dvntgedD F F F onsistent with the just svings
prinipleF st is lexilly suordinte oth the to ¢rst priniple of justieD whih governs
the si liertiesD nd lso to the other prt of the seond priniple whih gurntees fir
equlity of opportunityF
    he si ide nd motivtion is tht soil inequlities in  oopertive sheme
mong free nd equl persons need to e justi¢edF end they n e justi¢ed even to
the lest dvntged memer of soiety y showing tht they re to the gretest ene¢t
of those lest dvntged personsF hy might this e soc wls9s thought is tht the size
of the soil ke is not independent of the wy in whih we shre it outX y giving @IA
inentives to greter effort nd the development of tlent nd @PA putting resoures into
the hnds of those est le to mke produtive use of themD we n mke everyoneD nd
a fortiori the lest dvntgedD etter off thn they would e under n equl distriutionF



Interpretation
What gets distributed?

wls9s distriutive urreny onsists not of utility or money ut of llEpurpose mens or
resoures whih he ssumes re useful to people whtever their oneption of the good
isF ome of theseD suh s lierties nd some opportunities re distriuted y priniples
lexilly prior to the differene prinipleF he differene priniple dels with soil nd
eonomi dvntges whih re minly shed out s welth nd inomeF

Who are the least advantaged?

wls understnds this in terms of the prospets of some representtive memer of 
lss @he suggests unskilled workersA or in terms of the verge inome of those with less
thn the medin inomeF xeither of these is espeilly stisftory nd wls seems to
ignore the possiility tht the lest dvntged might e memers of some permnently
unemployed underlss with muh less thn the medin inomeF re lso seems titly
to ssume tht muh the sme people will e the lest dvntged in different possile
soietiesF e seond miguity onerns the wy in whih wls uilds inequlity into
the formultion of the prinipleF he wy wls originlly puts the priniple it looks
s if inequlities re only permissile if they etter the lot of the lest dvntgedF fut
tht interprettion seems inonsistent with wls9s lim tht the prties to the originl
position do not tke n interest in one nother9s interestsF

                                          I
How is it operationalized?

he differene priniple does not diretly govern the distriution of welth nd inomeF
st is implemented minly vi the hoie of si struture for soietyF gonsistent with the
priniples governing the si lierties nd fir opportunityD we hoose  set of instituE
tions  inluding  legl systemD rules for the quisition nd trnsfer of propertyD mix
etween mrket nd eonomi plnningD seletion of types of ¢rms  tht is expeted to
yield the est sustinle outome for the lest dvntgedF gitizens re free to pursue
their good s they see ¢t within tht si strutureF he hoie of rules for the si
struture is idelly suh tht if itizens ide y those rules then ny outomes ount s
justF fut in prtie we need to ttend to the strutureD the tx rte etF to ensure tht
the hoies itizens mke don9t undermine the kground onditions under whih they
ontinue to oEoperte s free nd equlF
     xote tht there9s room for  lot of rgument out whih poliies nd strutures re
justi¢ed y the differene prinipleF hould privte shooling e permittedD for exmplec
porX tht it gets prents to work hrderD enourges sving nd therey ene¢ts everyone
@inluding the lest dvntgedAF eginstX tht edution is @prtlyA  positionl good
nd privte edution pushes those with lest further k in the queue for jos nd
university plesF

Arguments for the difference principle
The argument from the original position

wls lims tht the prties to the originl position will use s  priniple of rtionl
hoie the soElled mximin deision ruleF his deision rule sttes tht fed with 
hoie of lterntive sttes of the world with eh stte ontining  rnge of possile
outomesD one should hoose the stte of ffirs where the worst outome in tht stte
of ffirs is etter thn the worst outome in ny lterntiveF his deision rule is difE
ferent from the one ommonly employed in rtionlEhoie theory whih sttes tht one
should hoose in order to mximize expeted utilityF wls lims tht the norml utilityE
mximizing rule is not pplile where one is denied  knowledge of the proilities tE
thed to prtiulr outomesF woreover the prties re hoosing priniples s trustees
for others in the light of fundmentl interestsF wls lims tht they would not hoose
priniples tht ould not e epted in the long termF

The Pareto argument?

wny people hve een septil out wls9s of¢il rgument for the differene prinE
ipleF ome  for exmple qFeFgohen  hve ttriuted to him  susidiry rgument in
fvour of the differene priniple whih proeeds not from ontrtrin rtionl hoie
ut from more diret morl rgumentF his rgument egins from the fmilir ide tht
people do not deserve either their nturl ilities or their ple in the soil hierrhyF
here one ws orn nd the ssets one ws orn with re seen s mtters of rute luk
@noEone relly ever deserves nythingAF sn  free mrket systemD of ourseD one trdes on
those ssets to get more in the wy of inome nd welthF futD ording to this rguE
mentD it would e unfir to llow distriutive shres to e in£uened y ftors tht re
ritrry from  morl point of viewF eordinglyD there is  presumption in fvour of n
initil equlity in soil primry goodsF fut it would e irrtionl to insist on mintining
this equlity if everyone ould do etter y ndoning itX where the lot of everyone @nd
therefore the lest dvntgedA is improved y deprting from equlity this is wht we
should doF


                                        P
    fut it is hrd to pin this priniple on wlsF wls does indeed sy tht people do
not deserve their nturl ilities or their ple in the soil hierrhyD ut this is prt of
n rgument to the effet tht onsidertions of merit should not inform the hoie of
priniples of justieF wls is mking spe for the rgument from the originl position
rther thn dvning  diret rgument out wht ought to hppen within soietyF e
n9t nd shouldn9t hoose our priniples of justie on the sis of  prior oneption of
desertD rther the prties hoose them with  view to the rtionl dvntge nd mutul
ene¢t of itizensF yne we hve  oEopertive sheme in pleD s justi¢ed y the y
rgumentD we n lso mke judgements out deservingness ginst the kground of
the inentives nd disinentives estlished y the shemeF

Critique
reditlyD sine the differene priniple is  priniple of distriution tht sits etween
 strit eglitrinism nd n eptne of whtever distriution issues from mrket
intertionsD the differene priniple hs ttrted ritis from oth left nd rightF

Right-wing criticisms

gonservtives nd liertrins @suh s oert xozikA hve tended to fous on the pE
prent inonsisteny etween wls9s ritique of utilitrinism nd the knowledged
effets of the differene prinipleF wlsD in his ritique of utilitrinism mkes muh of
the ft tht utilitrinism pils to tke seriously the differene etween personsF fut
doesn9t the differene priniple do just this y using the tlents of the etter endowed
s  resoure for the less well endowedc wls9s priniple therefore omes into on£it
with n intuitively ttrtive priniple onerning the morl reltionship etween humn
eingsX voken selfEownershipF

Left-wing criticism

qFeF gohen hs rgued tht there is n inonsisteny etween the motivtions tht wls
ttriutes to individuls in  wellEordered soiety nd some of his rguments for the difE
ferene prinipleF sf itizens relly re motivted y  sense of justieD should the more
dvntged relly need unequlizing inentives to get them to work hrder for the enE
e¢t of those less dvntged thn they rec

Reading
B tohn wlsD A Theory of JusticeD h PF nd seF RSF
frin frryD Theories of JusticeD h T nd eppendix gF
hilippe n rijsD hifferene riniplesD in muel preemn edFD The Cambridge Com-
      panion to RawlsF
qFeF gohenD here the etion ssD Philosophy and Public AffairsD IWWUF
qFeF gohenD he reto ergument for snequlityD Social Philosophy and PolicyD IWWSF
ghristopher fertrmD riniples of histriutive tustieD gounterftuls nd ristoryD
      Journal of Political Philosophy sD Q @IWWQAF
tohn rrsnyiD gn the wximin riniple erve s  fsis for worlityD American Po-
      litical Science ReviewD @TWA @IWURADppF SWRTHTF
edm wiftD How Not to Be a Hypocrite: School Choice for the Morally PerplexedF @yn the
      privte shooling exmple in the letureAF

                                                                 
c Chris Bertram, 2004




                                         Q