1

Justice

TA: Christopher Lewis

8 December 2014

Is inequality necessary for justice?

The naturally gifted and the untalented, the skilled and the unskilled, the haves and the

have nots, all tend to create inequality, the gaps in society. This inequality is defined in terms of

the economic structure of society which includes the taxation system, wage regulations, and

property laws. Based on a theory of justice proposed by John Rawls, a society would build a

structure based on the principles of justice that they would choose. Rawls proposes that they

would choose a liberal egalitarian conception of justice. Inequality is frowned upon by liberal

egalitarians, who believe in a society that is free, while at the same time embracing equality.

However, in Rawls’s theory, his proposed conception of justice, justice as fairness, would permit

inequalities on the basis that they would “maximize the position of the worst off,” under the

Difference Principle, part of the second principle of Rawls’s conception of justice. Rawls

believes that inequalities have the capacity of allowing an economy to grow, uplifting the worst

off to a better position than they would have otherwise. Rawls argues this on the basis of the idea

of incentives, that naturally talented and skilled people will work harder, fill jobs needed by the

economy, and use their talents for a reward such as increased pay or added benefits.

Gerald Allen Cohen, a Marxist political philosopher, presents an argument that

the Difference Principle does not justify significant inequalities of income and wealth in the

economic system, and that it may not need them at all. Cohen’s criticism of the structure created

by the chosen principles of justice is that not only the structure should be ruled by the principles

but also the choices of the individuals within it. Cohen argues for an “egalitarian ethos”, which

2

would be choice driven by commitment to equality and the principles of justice rather than

choice being driven by incentives. Therefore, the inequalities through incentives that Rawls calls

for would not be necessary if this “egalitarian ethos” existed.

Cohen’s argument is valid in his idea that an “egalitarian ethos” is required for justice

and therefore, Rawls’s inequalities would not be needed. This is based on the criticism of the

foundation of Rawls’s theory where “citizens in a just society uphold the principles that make it

just” (Cohen 129). However, Rawls would argue that the principles of justice create a structure

by which it would determine the choices of institutions rather than those of individuals and that

by creating a just structure chosen by the people, it will not only impact their lives, but will also

be upheld through the Original Position. What Cohen calls for may be too complex to implement

into society and therefore Rawls’s basic structure, which rules over institutions rather than the

individual decisions of people, is an answer to this complexity. In theory, Cohen’s approach may

create a more just society that upholds the principles of justice that it chooses, but Rawls’s theory

is relatively more realistic for an actual society, based on the inherent nature of humans.

However, establishing an ethos, as Cohen suggests, creates a just society. Therefore, Rawls’s

Difference Principle is not justified in a just society that has inequalities in income and wealth,

based on the claim that justice requires an ethos. However, this ethos represents an ideal situation

of society and Rawls’s structure is a response to the fact that an ethos may be impossible to

assume in a real society.

Rawls states that in the Original Position, the parties would choose a conception of

justice, out of a list of possibilities, including Rawls’s Two Principles, a combination of Rawls’s

First Principle with a form of average utility, Classical Teleological conceptions, Intuitionistic

conceptions, and Egoistic conceptions. The Original Position, as defined by Rawls, is, “a status

3

quo in which any agreements reached are fair. It is a state of affairs in which the parties are

equally represented as moral persons and the outcome is not conditioned by arbitrary

contingencies or the relative balance of social forces” (Rawls 104). What this means is that the

Original Position is intended to create an environment that will yield a structure of justice that is

not influenced by discriminations, stereotypes, and inequalities that plague society today. This is

achieved by the Veil of Ignorance, an important aspect of the Original Position. The Veil of

Ignorance ensures that individuals do not make decisions based on place in society, social status,

risk, and circumstances of their society including economic status or its political situation, as

well as what generation they belong to. What the parties do know that will inform their decision

is general knowledge of human society, political affairs, economic theory, social organization,

and human psychology. The point of the Veil of Ignorance is that, “They must choose principles

the consequences of which they are prepared to live with whatever generation they turn out to

belong to” (Rawls 119). In addition, what Rawls is saying here is that he believes that individuals

will continue to uphold the principles of justice after a conception has been chosen.

Rawls believes that within the Original Position, the parties would choose the two

principles of justice that he proposes. These principles are as follows:

“First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of basic

liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.

Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a)

reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and

offices open to all” (Rawls 53).

The Difference Principle, of which Cohen critiques, lies within part (b) of the second principle.

An important characteristic of these principles to note is that the principles are considered in

4

order, meaning that the second principle cannot be justified if it violates the first and part (b) of

the second principle cannot be justified if it violates part (a) or the first principle.

The Difference Principle creates inequalities in the economic structure so that the worst

off, the involuntary unemployed and the working poor, can be in a better position than they

would be otherwise. The idea behind this is that with inequalities, represented in Rawls’s

argument as incentives, the economy will be allowed to grow. How this is possible is that the

talented people will be incentivized to work harder, produce more, and occupy jobs that are

needed by the economy. As a result, the economy would grow, the worst off would receive more,

and they would be better off than if these incentives and inequalities didn’t exist. Here is where

Cohen’s argument comes in. Cohen wonders that if, given people choose these principles within

the Original Position, and based on the fact that they will not know their place in society and that

they will be committed to their structure, why should the talented need incentives for the goal of

growing the economy to help the worst off. Rawls’s principles of justice covers only the

structure of society and not the choices of individuals within the structure. In the case of

incentives, there is a choice of whether the talented will work harder or not and a choice to

demand rewards for more work. In this case, Rawls’s theory seems to create a bridge between

structure and individual. Though in this case Rawls is still creating a structure for that choice

rather than creating a set of rules for decision making. Yet still, it brings to question whether

Rawls’s principles should not only consider the structure of society but the individuals and how

they live their lives as well. Cohen believes that in order for not only the structure be just, but the

society and the choices of that society as well, and that it is necessary to have an “egalitarian

ethos”.

5

Cohen suggests an “egalitarian ethos,” which would guide the decisions and choices of

individuals within the structure proposed by the chosen principles of justice by the parties in the

Original Position. This ethos is a response by Cohen to the question of why the talented would

refuse work for incentives if it is suggested that they are proponents of the principles of justice. It

is a way to ensure that choice is driven by a commitment to equality and the structure of justice

rather than one of personal gain. Therefore, with this structure, the need for inequalities would

cease to exist. Cohen believes that “A society that is just within the terms of the difference

principle, so we may conclude, requires not simply just coercive rules, but also an ethos of

justice that informs individual decisions […] a structure of response lodged in motivations that

inform everyday life” (Cohen 128). What Cohen means by this is that the ethos would have to be

inherent to the individuals and not be forced upon by the system, otherwise it would violate

personal liberties.

Rawls’s might respond to Cohen’s argument by saying that the principles of justice create

the structure and in addition, regulate it, instead of regulating the choices of individuals. The

structure itself would hold influence over the lives of individuals. This means that through the

choice and implementation of the structure, persons would be compelled to uphold its justice in

their everyday lives. However, Cohen would respond in the opposite direction, saying the

decisions of individuals have influence over the economy and the structure itself. Because

individuals maintain their personal liberties, they can make their own decisions with their own

motivations, whether there are within the aims of the structure of justice. In addition, by

assuming individuals will uphold the principles, a just society could either be successful or not,

and based on the selfish characteristics of humans, it is possible that it would not. With an

“egalitarian ethos,” however, individuals would still make their own decisions with their own

6

motivations, but they would also be motivated by a commitment to the structure of justice. With

this ethos, the structure of justice may be upheld without violating the individual liberties of

people.

Cohen’s argument for an egalitarian ethos and that it would make the inequalities that

Rawls calls for in the Difference Principle unnecessary, is right as laid out above, when looking

at the foundation of Rawls’s theory and the Original Position. Cohen says that an egalitarian

ethos, a commitment to equality and justice is necessary for justice. The question that lies here,

however, is whether this ethos is necessary in all cases to create a just society and whether this

ethos is really necessary for justice. Humans are naturally selfish, driven by natural instincts to

achieve a better status for themselves than what they already have. How then could an ethos that

Cohen proposes be imposed on a species that is naturally selfish? It seems that this ethos would

have to be a quality inherent from the beginning for people, as selfishness is. In theory, this is a

valid proposition but it could never be applied because selfishness has already taken its place in

reality. Another solution could be to draw a compromise between human nature and Cohen’s

ethos. While humans are selfish, they are also emotional beings and creating a structure that can

draw out an emotional response that will invoke a commitment to justice and equality without

the need of incentives and without violating personal liberties, may be a compromise. Yet this in

itself is difficult as it is too complex to predict the behavior of individuals in a society. Therefore,

with these ideas in mind, whether ethos is necessary for a justice is unclear. On one hand it is, so

that decisions that are made are motivated by a commitment to the just structure rather than

personal gain and so that the structure can be implemented to create a just society. On the other

hand, the egalitarian ethos is an impossible feat and Rawls’s principles addresses a more realistic

society where egalitarian ethos does not exist.

7

Within this conflict between a structure with egalitarian ethos and without, the question

arises of whether there can be a truly just society outside of pure theory. Rawls’s theory of

justice is a theory, but if theories were to be looked on a spectrum of impossible to realistic,

Rawls’s theory would lie further towards more realistic than Cohen’s egalitarian ethos. Perfect

justice is a theory. It is possible that in reality, it may never be achieved. It can be realized in

parts but the full idea may never exist. Cohen’s egalitarian ethos is necessary for justice. For

fully realized justice, it would be necessary for the individuals within the society to support and

have a full commitment to equality, otherwise, we move further down the spectrum towards a

less just society, where choices are driven by individual needs and desires, rather than a

commitment to justice. From this perspective, both Cohen and Rawls are right in their thinking.

If Rawls’s intention is to create a structure that accepts the inherent characteristics of man, then

his belief that the principles of justice apply only to the basic structure of society is correct. In

this sense, without an egalitarian ethos, the only way to ensure that people make choices that are

only to better the position of the worst off is to violate one of the other principles such as

personal liberties, as Cohen himself states, “…it is impossible to design rules of egalitarian

economic choice conformity with which can always be checked, but also because it would

severely compromise liberty if people were required forever to consult such rules, even

supposing that appropriate applicable rules could be formulated” (Cohen 128). On the other

hand, this does not ensure a just society, but relies on the structure to compel people to make

decisions that will uphold the principles of justice. Therefore, if a theory of justice, and a set of

proposed principles of justice is to truly create a just society and a just structure, an egalitarian

ethos will be necessary.

8

Cohen presents an argument against the severe inequalities permitted by the Difference

Principle and a further argument that these inequalities may not even be needed. In addition,

Cohen agrees that the structure created by the principles of justice may be just but that it does not

necessarily create a just society and in order to create a just society, an “egalitarian ethos” is

needed. However, Rawls’s structure is one proposed to incorporate the individual motivations of

humans while maintaining their personal liberties and assumes that with choosing these

principles of justice, they will be proponents of them. Rawls’s structure is one that takes into

account the selfishness of humans in their decisions and motivations while egalitarian ethos

would be unrealistic to expect in a real society. From this, it can be concluded that justice

requires an ethos if it is to create both a just structure and a just society and that in a just society

the Difference Principle does not justify inequalities of income and wealth. Rawls’s principles of

justice and the Difference Principle work to create a structure that encourages a just society

rather than actually creating one.

Sources

9

Cohen, G. A. If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're so Rich? Cambridge, MA: Harvard

UP, 2001. Print.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 1971. Print.

Rachel Johnson

10

SUNed ID: rachelj