Gnl AKAR

RAWLSS DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE

AND NOZICKS LIBERTARIAN
CRITIQUE

Thesis submitted to the

M.A. Thesis in Philosophy

Institute of Social Sciences

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Arts

in

Philosophy

by

Gnl AKAR
September - 2012

Fatih University

September 2012
i
RAWLSS DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE
AND NOZICKS LIBERTARIAN
CRITIQUE

Thesis submitted to the

Institute of Social Sciences

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Arts

in

Philosophy

by

Gnl AKAR

Fatih University

September 2012

ii
 APPROVAL PAGE

Student : Gnl AKAR

Institute : Institute of Social Sciences
Department : Philosophy

Thesis Subject : Rawlss Difference Principle and Nozicks Libertarian

Critique

Thesis Date : September 2012

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the
degree of Master of Arts.

Assist. Prof. Dr. engl ELK

Head of Department

This is to certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of
Arts.

Prof. Manuel A. KNOLL

Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Prof. Manuel A. KNOLL .

Assist. Prof. Dr. engl ELK .

Assist. Prof. Dr. mer AHA .

It is approved that this thesis has been written in compliance with the
formatting rules laid down by the Graduate Institute of Social Sciences.

Assoc. Prof. Mehmet KARAKUYU

Director

iii
 AUTHOR DECLARATIONS

The material included in this thesis has not been submitted wholly or in

part for any academic award or qualification other than that for which it is

now submitted.

Gnl AKAR

September, 2012

iv
 ABSTRACT

Gnl AKAR September 2012

RAWLSS DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE AND NOZICKS

LIBERTARIAN CRITIQUE

John Rawlss A Theory of Justice, published in 1971, and is widely recognized as

the most important book in contemporary political philosophy. The most innovative
idea of Rawlss theory is the difference principle. This principle is to be understood
as the principle of the welfare state as it calls for the redistribution of income and
wealth from the rich towards the poor. Also Turkey is transforming more and more
into a welfare state. So it is very interesting to understand the current philosophical
reasons given for the welfare state.

Are these reasons really convincing? What are the most important critiques of the
reasons for the welfare state? In order to debate these questions a section of the thesis
will examine the libertarian critique of Rawlss difference principle phrased by
Robert Nozick in his important book Anarchy, State and Utopia published in 1974.

According to Rawls talents and capabilities are common assets to be used for the
common advantage of society and especially for the least advantaged members of
society. Nozick strongly disagrees with this moral judgment and argues that people
own their talents and capabilities and deserve the full income they can do with them.
According to Nozick, Taxation of earnings is on a par with forced labor. Through a
confrontation of Rawlss and Nozicks arguments the thesis aims at a better
understanding and evaluation of the pros and cons of the welfare state.

Key Words:
Rawls, Nozick, Justice, Difference Principle, Redistribution of Income, Welfare
State, Taxation

v
 ZET

Gnl AKAR September 2012

RAWLSUN FARKLILIK PRENSB VE NOZCKN

LBERTER ELETRS

John Rawlsun Bir Adalet Teorisi isimli eseri 1971de yaynland ve birok kii
tarafndan modern siyaset felsefesindeki en nemli kitap olarak kabul edildi.
Rawlsun teorisindeki en yeniliki fikir farkllk prensibidir. Refah devleti prensibi
olarak anlalan bu prensip, gelir ve refahn zenginden fakire doru yeniden
dalmn gerektirir. Bununla birlikte, Trkiye gittike bir refah devletine dnme
yolundadr. Bu yzden, refah devleti iin belirlenmi gncel felsef nedenleri
anlamak olduka ilgin olacaktr.
Bu nedenler gerekten ikna edici midir? Refah devletine ilikin en nemli
eletiriler nelerdir? Bu sorular tartmak zere, tezin bir blmnde Robert
Nozickin 1974te yaynlanan nemli kitab Anari, Devlet ve topyada amlad
Rawlsun farkllk prensibinin zgrlk eletirisi deerlendirilecek. Rawlsa gre
yetenek ve kabiliyetler toplumun ortak faydas iin kullanlan ortak deerlerdir ve
zellikle de toplumun en az avantajl kesimi iin kullanlmaldr. Nozick, bu ahlaki
yargya kesin bir ekilde kar kar ve insanlarn sahip olduklar yetenek ve
kabiliyetleriyle kendi gelirlerini elde etmeyi hak ettiklerini savunur. Nozicke gore,
kazandklarnn vergisi bir anlamda zorunlu iiliktir. Bu tez, Rawls ve Nozickin
argmanlarnn birletirilerek refah devletinin nedenleri ve sonular hakknda daha
iyi bir anlama ve deerlendirmeyi amalamaktadr.

Anahtar Kelimeler:
Rawls, Nozick, Adalet, Farkllk Prensibi, Gelir Dalm, Refah Devleti,
Vergilendirme

vi
 LIST OF CONTENTS

Approval Page iii

Author Declaration iv

Abstract v

zet vi

List of Contents vii

Acknowledgements ix

Introduction 2

Purpose of the Study 7

Chapter 1: The Main Ideas of A Theory of Justice 8

1.1. Methods 10

1.1.1. Contract Theory 11

1.1.2. Coherence Theory 13

1.2. The Two Principles of Justice 15

2. Chapter 2: The Difference Principle 20

2.1. The Underlying Central Moral Intuition 23

2.2. The Principle of Redress 26

2.3. The Difference Principle 30

2.4. The Difference Principle as the Principle of the Welfare State 34

vii
3. Chapter 3: Nozicks Critique of The Difference Principle 38

3.1. The Entitlement Theory 40

3.2. Self-ownership 43

3.3. Common Assets 44

3.4. The Separateness of the People 45

3.5. Taxation In Order To Finance the Welfare State 45

4. Conclusion 47

Bibliography 49

viii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge all those who has contributed to the preparation of this
thesis. I would like to firstly, thank to Prof. Manuel Knoll, my thesis advisor, who
helped me.

I should also mention my fianc, Emrah Emirbilek without whose

encouragements maybe I would not find any motivations to begin with writing this.

And special acknowledgement for the editing of the text goes to Canan ileki
and Zehra ifti without whose helps in this work could not be excelled in terms of
the use of the English language.

ix
 INTRODUCTION
John Rawlss A Theory of Justice, published in 1971. In 1974, after three years
from publication of Rawls book, Nozick, who is a colleague of Rawls from Harvard
University, published his book Anarchy, State and Utopia. He wrote this book as a
counter study to Rawlss book.
Nozick objects Rawls difference principle and he puts forth his entitlement
theory as an alternative. Besides, Nozick both criticized Rawls and praised at the
same book. To put it in his words as follows:
A Theory of Justice is a powerful, deep, subtle, wide-ranging, systematic
work in political and moral philosophy which has not seen its like since the
writing of John Stuart Mill, if then. It is a fountain of illuminating ideas,
integrated together into a lovely whole. Political philosophers now must either
work within Rawls theory or explain why not (Nozick, 1974:183).

Rawls explains his purpose of the study as to work out a theory of justice that
represents an alternative to utilitarian thought generally and so to all of these
different versions of it (Rawls, 1971:22). Utility is variously understood as
happiness, pleasure or the satisfactions of the desires of preferences. According to
utilitarian principles laws are justified if and only if they contribute more to human
happiness (Wolff, 1996:53). According to Rawls, each member of society has an
inviolability which is built on justice. Even the welfare of the society cannot make
null and void the natural rights of an individual. (Rawls, 1971:28).
Rawls sees justice as the first virtue of social institutions. According to him, if the
law and institutions are unjust, they must be updated or abolished. Justice is for every
individual in the society and nothing overrides the inviolability of the person which
is founded on justice (Rawls, 1971:3).
Rawls is against utilitarianism, which evaluates things as useful according to their
sum of advantages. For Rawls, the liberties of equal citizenship are taken consider
as the basic structure of a just society and the rights which are guaranteed by justice
are not comparable with the calculus of social interests. The understanding of the
loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others does not

2
find a place in the idea of justice (Rawls, 1971:3-4). For Rawls, injustice may be
tolerated so as to abstain from a greater injustice in the society (Rawls, 1971:4).
Rawls accepts the principles of justice as basic, and justice secures the rights, but for
Nozick, we have entitlements which we are born with and justice comes to realize
when individuals have the entitlements of themselves. (Ryan, 1993:3-4).
On the other hand, classic philosophers Plato and Aristotle, do not see justice as a
matter of individual rights. They see justice as a matter of the terms of social and
political cooperation. For them, justice is a matter of the allocation of fundamental
tasks, putting people in the social roles they had to fulfil. While Aristotle, devoted
some spaces the principle of allocating advantages according to desert and merit,
Rawls leaves out desert entirely (Ryan, 1993:4). According to Rawls, the problem
of justice arises, for people who are engaged in a cooperative enterprise for mutual
benefit, and it is the problem of how the benefits of their cooperation are to be
shared (Scanlon, 1999:86).
For Aristotle, justice is proportionate equality. Furthermore, persons should
receive holdings in proportion to their desert. A just world is one in which the best
do best, and the less good do less well. It is what Nozick calls a patterned
conception of justice, distributing benefits according to a dimension along which
individuals can be ranked (Ryan, 1993:9).
Ciceros De Oficiis or The Duties is a letter from his son. Cicero explains in his
book the four cardinal virtues which are wisdom, justice, courage and temperance.
He counts justice as the second cardinal virtue. For Cicero, justice is the virtue that
holds society together and allows to pursue the common good for whose sake society
exists (Ryan, 1993:9).
According to Rawls, the main subject of justice is the basic structure of society
and the major social institutions that distribute advantages of the social cooperation.
Because of its crucial and deep effects on the life of the citizens, the basic structure is
the main subject of justice. Moreover, Rawls is aware of the inequalities between
people in the society and he tries to find a solution which is acceptable as just for
everyone. He explains his own idea in his book as the first problem of justice is to
determine the principles to regulate inequalities and to adjust the profound and long
lasting effects of social, natural, historical contingencies (Rawls, 1999:258).
3
 In this perspective, Rawls presents a social contractarian theory. He assumes that
people who have a conception of their good and a sense of justice as moral persons,
choose the principles of justice and they will adapt these rules after they determine
the principles. In the abnormal position people chose the principles of justice behind
a veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance means that the man who is in the original
position does not have information about his place in society, his social status, his
capabilities or skills, whether he is rich or not. Anything which notices the mans
position in society is hidden from him to obtain an equal position for everyone. The
principles of justice are determined by a fair agreement. Rawls calls this situation as
justice as fairness (Rawls, 1971:12). Finally, Rawls believes that the two principles
of justice would be chosen in the original position. The final statement of the two
principles of justice as follows:
First principle
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive
total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system
of liberty for all.
Second principle: social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are both:
(a) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent
with the just savings principle, and
(b) Attached to offices and positions open to all under
conditions of fair equality of opportunity (Rawls, 1971: 302).

The principles of social justice, provide a way of assigning rights and duties in
the basic institutions of society and they define the appropriate distribution of the
benefits and burdens of social cooperation(Rawls, 1971:4). According to him, the
principles of social justice must apply to the basic structure of society and then,
these principles regulate the choice of political constitution and the main elements
of the economic and social system (Rawls, 1971:7).
Rawls asserts that the accidents of natural endowment and the contingencies
of social circumstance prohibit equality which was in existence in the initial
position, and the state must consider justice and equality in the distribution of goods
and wealth.
Besides, Nozick believes in that redistribution of holdings is a violation of
liberties of citizens and the state should not interfere free market economy which is

4
materialized by economic activities of people. He supports a minimal state, and in his
terminology a state is only a night watchman state. It means a limited state which
has the only duty to protect the citizens from each other or secure the contracts made
between individuals. What is more, Nozick defends a pure free market which is a
symbol of the liberties of the citizens.
According to Rawls, there is need of the state besides the free market economy
because the all members of society are not under equal conditions, some of them
under better condition while the others are not. Some of the people have ability,
skills and natural endowments. Both social and economic inequalities and natural
inequalities come into exist in a society. Each member of society should have equal
chance to use their talents or skills. Despite the differences in their economic classes
into which they are born, they should have equal chances of achievement. And the
state has a duty to provide justice in society. According to Rawls, an inequality can
be acceptable only if it is favor of the members of the least advantaged of society.
Nozick objects to the egalitarian liberalism of Rawls. According to Nozick, the
state should not interfere the market which is running under conditions of itself.
Nozicks theory of justice depends on the entitlement theory in which he rules out
the state of free markets by holding off its involvement of the market economy and
limited its duty such as protection of the agreements in which secure the basic rights
of citizens. According to entitlement theory, a persons proprietorship of goods is
legitimate only if it has gained by a chain of legitimate acquisitions, transfers and
rectifications. (Kavka, 1991:299).
Redistribution is a serious matter indeed, involving, as it does, the violation
of peoples rights. [] Taxation of earnings for labor is on a par with forced
labor. Some people find this claim obviously true: taking the earning of n
hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; is like forcing the person to
work n hours for anothers purpose (Nozick, 1974:168-169).

Nozick supports the right of private property in a strict way and he uses Lockean
proviso which requires that an acquisition of land is just if the others are not harmed
from this situation. Rawls is not against private property, he also defends it. Besides
the does not use the word of welfare capitalism, instead he prefers to use property-
owned democracy.

5
 According to Rawls, there are some people in the society and they unable to
provide the basic needs for themselves, and the welfare state should take care of
these people. The welfare of the state provides a well-being life for all members of
society and taxation has a crucial importance to materialize these services. To reduce
the poverty in the society or to provide a certain measure for a life standard may be
achieved by the social revenues and this requires a social cooperation. In the society,
everyone is responsible for each other. You cannot ignore the least advantaged
members of society. You cannot close your eyes to all inequalities and live well in
your small world.

6
 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
In this study, it is aimed that to compare Rawlss main thoughts with Nozicks.
Specially, Rawlss difference principle and Nozicks entitlement theory are
compared. Rawls is known as a social democrat that defends equality and justice
between all members of society. And for him, justice is possible, if the distribution
of goods and welfare are done in accordance with the benefit of the least advantaged
people. On the other hand, Nozick defines the justice as an entitlement. For him, if a
man entitled to have holdings by working hard or with his abilities it must be
acceptable as justice because the man gets his title with his own efforts.
Also, the necessities of the welfare state are to be shown in this study. The
positive and negative attributes or arguments concerning the welfare state are took
considered. Besides, the most important critiques of the reasons for the welfare state
and the libertarian critique of Rawlss difference principle phrased by Robert
Nozick, in his important book Anarchy, State and Utopia, published in 1974, are
handled in this study.

7
 CHAPTER 1

THE MAIN IDEAS OF A THEORY OF JUSTICE

John Rawls constructs his theory of justice depending upon the method of social
contract theories and holds this method necessary for grounding the principles. He
proposes for a just society which is determined by the wellfare position of its most
disadvantageous members. He is pursuing the idea whether a more egalitarian
political system cabaple of making a more fair distribution to each of its member can
be reached.
My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to
a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as found,
say, in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. In order to do this we are not thinking of
the original contract as one to enter a particular society or to set up a particular
form of government. Rather, the guiding idea is that the principles of justice for
the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are
the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own
interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the
fundamental terms of their association (Rawls, 1971:11).

If we consider this quote, it is interesting to notice that Rawls does not mention
Hobbes who is usually regarded as a main representative of a contract theory. Rawls
sees a close connection between the original position and the state of nature in the
traditional theory of the social contract. But the original position conveys a higher
level of abstraction than the social contract. According to Nagel, the aim of Rawls
by the social contract theory is to provide a way of treating the basic problems of
social choice, through the proxy of a specially constructed parallel problem of
individual choice, which can be solved by the more reliable intuitions and decision
procedures of rational prudence (Nagel, 1973:220).
In Rawlsian social contract theory, the original position does not indicate a
transformation from the state of nature to the state of society nor it is a previous
situation of the state of society. For Rawls, rational man who is in the original

8
position chooses what is good or bad, and just or unjust for him and so the principles
of justice will be determined.
In the original position people choose the principles of justice behind a veil of
ignorance. The veil of ignorance means that the man, who is in the original position
does not has any information about his place in society, what is his social status, his
capabilities or skills, whether he is intelligent or not. Anything which defines the
mans position in society is hidden from him to obtain an equal position for
everyone. Within the process of choosing, everyone has equal conditions, no one has
any clue about his status in the society. So, while a man is choosing a principle for
himself, he thinks and considers objectively. Then the principle, which man would
choose will be in accordance with everyone elses desire.
In the original position everyone has equal liberty since everyone is treated in the
same manner, there is no different application to anyone. The principles of justice are
defined in the light of fair agreement. Rawls mentions this situation with the name of
justice as fairness (Rawls, 1971:12).
For Rawls, justice as fairness means that the principles of justice are chosen in
the original position which is fair. It is fair because the veil of ignorance would
prevent any circumstances which causes people to be in more advantageous or
disadvantageous situation than other members through having or not having a partial
knowledge of his social status. Since they do not know their positions in society nor
which decisions might affect their own particular cases in a better way, it is required
that they appraise the principles only through taking general considerations (Rawls,
1971:137).
Justice as fairness begins with a choice of principles of justice determined by the
participants of society. Then they choose a constitution which is in accordance with
the principles of justice that are chosen by the majority of the people. After that, the
legislation part is chosen and finally the application of laws consists the last part of
the justice as fairness (Rawls, 1971:13).
In the initial situation people who are rational and mutually disinterested would
choose two different principles: the first relates to equal distribution of basic rights
and duties, the second one is to the social and economic inequalities (Rawls,
1971:14).
9
 For Rawls, the initial contractual situation is a purely hypothetical situation
and it leads to a certain conception of justice (Rawls, 1971:12). In the original
position everyone is equal because they have the same rights and they are in the same
condition. But the accidents of natural endowment and the contingencies of social
circumstance prohibit equality which was in existence in the initial position that
people go though the act of choosing the principles of justice in the original position
would reduce these cases causing inequality in society.

1.1. Methods
The principles of justice are chosen in a just way. If the process of choice is just,
then the conclusion would also be just.
According to Rawls, in the original position the people as moral persons, have a
conception of their good and a sense of justice (Rawls, 1971:19). So it can be said
that the ideal situation for people who would choose the principles of justice is to
have knowledge of all possible conceptions of justice. The best method is to know all
alternatives. Rawls here counts different kinds of understanding of justice: justice as
fairness, utilitarianism, intuitionism, perfectionism, egoism and mixed theories
(Rawls, 1971:123-24).
For Rawls, the people would choose one of these understandings of justice. But,
firstly, he brings some conditions for the alternatives to be chosen and he called them
as the formal constraints of the concept of right (Rawls, 1971:130). According to
Rawls, first of all the principles must be general. Secondly, the principles must be
universal in application. The third condition is that the principles must carry the
property of publicity and the fourth condition requires an ordering on conflicting
claims. The final condition of the principles that the principles must be the final court
of appeal in practical reasoning (Rawls, 1971:131-35). If it is necessary to combine
all conditions, Rawls says that a conception of right is a set of principles, general in
form and universal in application, that is to be publicly recognized as a final court of
appeal for ordering the conflicting claims of moral persons (Rawls, 1971:135).
For Rawls people are the rational creatures; therefore, each of them has the same
capability to think, to choose and to obey the regulations. What is more, that they
have self-confidence and self-esteem which are defined as the most important
10
primary good, provides them define the principles of justice (Raws, 1971: 440).
They are not in the everlasting search of what the best use to them; they already have
this knowledge. Finally, people know what is good for them and they would choose
justice as fairness.
Fairness takes a crucial place in Rawlss justice theory. In the idea of the social
contract, there is abstraction of all material conditions which has a potentiality to
give detriment to the fair agreement. The choice of the principles must be realized
under the neutral circumstances and hence, can be waried of social and political
effects.

1.1.1. Contract theory

The people who would choose the principles of justice are situated behind a veil
of ignorance (Rawls, 1971:12). It is not to be permitted to the people in the original
position to have knowledge concerning their place in society, their social status, class
position. Furthermore, a person does not know the conditions of society which he
belongs to it.
In a broad sense, it can be said that, in the original position people do not know
the part which is related to their social status, but they have general knowledge of
society, politics, economics, social organization and the laws of human psychology
(Rawls, 1971:137). For Rawls, people may have general information in the original
position, it is admissible. But, the significant point is that, the people have no
information about a subject which affects their choice. All of the restrictions give
them the opportunity to secure the objectivity of theory of justice. That people are
lacking in knowledge about their own particular situations which provides a fair
agreement between them. It can be said that, Rawls sees the veil of ignorance as a
part/device for ensuring a disinterested choice on the side of the parties. If it is
necessary to show the functions of the veil of ignorance with all clarity, we may give
the words of Rawls concerning the veil of ignorance.
I assume that the parties are situated behind a veil of ignorance.
They do not know how the various alternatives will affect their own particular
case. First of all, no one knows his place in society, his class position or
social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets
and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like. Nor, again, does

11
 anyone know his conception of the good, the particulars of his rational plan of
life, or even the special features of his psychology such as his aversion to risk
or liability to optimism or pessimism. The parties do not know the particular
circumstances of their own society. That is, they do not know its economic or
political situation, or the level of civilization and culture it has been able to
achieve (Rawls, 1971:136-37).
From this quote we may understand easily that the veil of ignorance satisfies the
impartiality of the chosen principles. It is a necessary requirement for the society that
it secures the objectivity of the principles of justice. Thus, the veil of ignorance has a
crucial position in Rawlss justice theory.
It is significant to say that Rawlss main aim is to determine the principles which
allow to assess whether a society is just. For Rawls, the basic structure of society
must be constituted in a just method. It is evident, then, the objectivity of the
principles of justice requires a neutral ground when the principles are determined.
For this reason, the veil of ignorance satisfies the neutrality of the principles.
Rawls considers a society whose members are mutually self-interested and their
support for and loyalty to each other depends upon self-advantage. They are rational
and they know what their own interest is. They almost have similar needs and
interests, besides they have power and ability in the same measure. Rawls conceives
the members of society in equal conditions that in the initial status quo no one is
superior to the other. Then he supposes that a few members of society come together
and that they argue about the situation of their established institutions. They have
awareness about their proposal that, if it is accepted by majority of the society, it
would be a principle for their future occasions. Also it would be binding for everyone
in society.
If we compare Hobbess social contract with Rawlss contract theory, it would be
easier to comprehend Rawlss theory. In Hobbesian contract, firstly, there is
transformation from state of nature to civil society. For Hobbes, state of nature is a
state of war, and such a war as is of every man against every man. In this condition,
the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short(Hobbes, 1958:106-107).
For Hobbes, since people have a desire to survive and the fear of death, they will
find the first law of nature which advises them seek peace and follow it (Hobbes,
1958:110). So everyone gives up the unlimited freedom in a state of nature in the

12
way of mutual liability and gains more crucial benefits for them like security and
right.
Rawlsian contract theory is not a transformation from state of nature to a state of
society. In his theory, there is not a certain time which the events come to reality. It
is an abstraction of social contract. There are established institutions in the society
and it is supposed that several people strive to learn whether these institutions
operate in a just or unjust way. They intervene once they realize something work
unjustly; therefore, their primary struggle is to provide possibly the best way of
distributing wellfare, rights and liberties.
The state of nature in Hobbess theory corresponds to the original position in
Rawlss theory. The individuals in the original position are conceived of being
rational and self-interested. They have general concepts like society, politics, justice
but no particular knowledge about their positions determined by their own choices.
The basic purpose of Rawlss theory is to elicit the justice distributed equally by
major institutions. If there is any complaint about the processing of institutions or
these processes are not approved by the majority of society, they are to be revised in
accordance with the principles of justice. The principles of justice are chosen behind
the veil of ignorance. Thus, the principles are determined in a just manner and a fair
agreement eventuates between individuals.
Shortly, it can be said that for Rawls, the content of the contract is not to enter a
new society or to recognize a new form of government, but to accept certain moral
principles (Rawls, 1971:16).

1.1.2. Coherence theory

The other justification of the original position or in other words the justification of
Rawlss two principles of justice is made by coherence theory. The coherence model
of justification begins from the considered convictions of justice or considered
judgments (Rawls, 1971:19, 47). They are judgments in which our moral capacities
are most likely to be displayed without distortion (Rawls, 1971:47). So, when the
judgments are chosen, we can discard those judgments made with hesitation, or in
which we have little confidence and those which are likely to be erroneous or to be
influenced by an excessive attention to our own interests (Rawls, 1971:47).
13
 A general acceptance or come to an agreement on the principles of justice
between the members of society is a major property of Rawlss theory. Considered
judgments must lead us the impartiality of the principles, so they may convey the
sense of justice. There is no place for judgments which are arbitrary and not
favorable for deliberation and judgment in general (Rawls, 1971:48).
Rawls thinks that the principles which would be chosen match our considered
convictions of justice or extend them in an acceptable way (Rawls, 1971:19). He
counts two main judgments which are accepted by the majority of society and makes
allowance for them as considered judgments that religious intolerance and racial
discrimination are unjust(Rawls, 1971:19).
Barry makes the judgments subject more and more clear as he reminds us that
religious toleration is in fact the core and paradigm of the first principle of justice,
maximum equal liberty, while racial discrimination is the most glaring denial of the
part of the second principle that mandates fair equality of opportunity (Barry,
1989:281).
According to the coherence model of justification considered convictions are
provisional fixed points which we presume any conception of justice must fit
(Rawls, 1971:20). Thus, considered convictions of justice do not contain a
contradiction between the principles of justice.
Lets assume that there will be a contradiction between the principles of justice
and considered convictions of justice. Then, according to Rawls, we can modify the
account of the initial situation or we can revise our existing judgments for even the
judgments we take provisionally as fixed points are liable to revision (Rawls,
1971:20). Rawls assures us that the choice of principles in the original position will
always conform to our considered moral judgments. In cases of conflict, this will be
accomplished either by revising our considered moral judgments or by revising the
particular conditions on the original position that gave rise to them (Sterba, 1991:9).
The principles of justice can be verified by both contractualist method and
coherence method. To achieve this, first of all, the contractual conditions must be
suitable for the principles and the principles must reciprocate to our considered
judgments.

14
 According to Rawls, our moral intuitions and judgments concerning what is just
and unjust, have reached a situation that he calls it as reflective equilibrium
(Campbell, 1988:73). And he defines it as follow: This state of affairs I refer to as
reflective equilibrium. It is an equilibrium because at last our principles and
judgments coincide; and it is reflective since we know to what principles our
judgments conform and the premises of their derivation (Rawls, 1971:20).
The method of reflective equilibrium involves selecting our strongest and surest
moral convictions as the provisional fixed points and then working backwards to the
principles which would justify such institutions. Thus we are certain that slavery is
wrong and justify this conviction by reference, perhaps to the idea of the
fundamental equality of all persons (Campbell, 1988:73).
The coherence of the principles of justice and considered judgments as Rawls
called reflective equilibrium may be unstable. When an incoherence comes into
existence, either we may revise our judgments or modify the original position
(Rawls, 1971:20). And Campbell notices that considered convictions of justice
whose coincidence with the principles of justice which is chosen in the original
position establish the liberal ideal of justice (Campbell, 1988:73).

1.2. The two principles of justice

The two principles of justice are chosen in the original position. Rawls calls them
as a special conception of justice and systematized them as follow:
First principle
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive
total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system
of liberty for all.
Second principle: social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are both:
(a) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent
with the just savings principle, and
(b) Attached to offices and positions open to all under
conditions of fair equality of opportunity (Rawls, 1971: 302).

In a broad sense, we may say that, the first principle is related to the liberty and
the second one is related to the equality, in the meaning of social and economic
equality. These principles apply to the basic structure of society. They are to control

15
the allocation of rights and duties and to arrange the distribution of social and
economic advantages.
Rawls counts some of the basic liberties of citizens as freedom of thought,
freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest, liberty of
conscience and political liberty like right to elect and be elected. All of these liberties
are must be equal to the citizens of a just society (Rawls, 1971: 61).
For Rawls liberty can perpetually be comprehended in three ways: the agents
who are free, the restrictions or limitations which they are free from, and what it is
that they are free to do or not to do (Rawls, 1971: 202). In that manner, he defines
liberty as follow: this or that person (or persons) is free (or not free) from this or that
constraint (or set of constraints) to do or (not to do) so and so (Rawls, 1971:202).
Rawls considers liberty as an inevitable principle for the structure of institutions. For
him, persons, associations, and the states can be free or not free. In addition to this,
there are lots of things that make them free or not free to do.
Moreover, for Rawls, if there is a group of persons who has a greater liberty than
the others, it is not possible to talk about equal liberty as it is unequal. All kinds of
liberties must be equivalent for every single member of society.
Rawls considers a distinction between liberty and the worth of liberty. For him,
liberty is described with a complete system of the liberties of equal citizenship. But
the worth of liberty is changing depending on peopless capacity to improve their
ends under the defined structure of system. On the one hand, liberty is similar for
everyone, on the other hand, the worth of liberty is not equal for all. Because, there
are some people who have more wealth, and so they have more means to attain their
aims (Rawls, 1971:204).
Rawls however, suggests liberties must be equally obtained by every person in a
society. Freeman, believing Rawlss theory more fair, claims that in every other
economic system, the value of liberty to the least advantaged is less than in justice as
fairness (Freeman, 2003:9-10). Therefore, it can be concluded that Rawlss main
emphasis upon equally distributed liberties and rights leads to a completely
egalitarian model of justice as fairness.
Now, if we talk about the second principle of justice, it is concerning the
distribution of income and wealth. According to Rawls, if the distribution of income
16
and wealth is not equal, then, even this unequality must be to everyones advantage.
Inequalities are not necessarily unjust; since they create conditions in which wellfare
state must be in use to regulate the determinants of income and wealth. There might
be gains for the less adventegous ones, which will put them in a more desirable and
preferable situations. In short, it is accessible that social and economic inequalities
must be regulated in such a way that it must be beneficial for everyone.
The first sub-principle of the second principle is called difference principle -which
is the main subject of our third chapter- and the second is fair equality of opportunity
principle. The difference principle is a principle that basic institutions ought to
maximize the life prospects of the worst off (Miller, 1991:158).
The fair equality of opportunity must be guaranteed by holding positions and
offices open to everyone. But it is not enough; additionally, a fair chance must be
presented for all to reach it. If we explain it with Rawlss own words, he says that
fair equality of opportunity is said to require not merely that public offices and
social positions be open in the formal sense, but that all should have a fair chance to
attain them (Rawls, 2001:43).
The arrangement of these principles subjects to an order. For Rawls, the first
principle is prior to the second principle, and he calls this as the priority of liberty.
As we said before, Rawls defines the person as having the capacity for a sense of
justice and the capacity for a conception of the good.
The first quality of the person is related to the persons understanding of the
principles of justice. The one who has the capacity for a sense of justice may
understand, apply and treat for the sake of the principles of justice. The second
quality is related to the persons understanding of the good. The man who has the
capacity for a conception of the good may pursue a rational plan of life. He knows
what is good or not for him and he has a capacity to choose rationally a good life for
himself. (Rawls, 1971:505).
Now, in Rawlss theory, the priority of liberty has a crucial importance. The basic
liberties which Rawls counts, consisting a part of the self respect of the man and they
are inalienable which means that the right and liberties can not be changed or taken
away. The free and rational man as equal citizen, can not sacrifice his rights and
liberties to promote the happiness of the society or to increase the wealth of the
17
nation. The liberties can not be also limited for the realizing of the difference
principle. (Freeman, 2003:5-6).
The principles of justice are ordered in a lexical order, and it means that unless the
first principle is realized, the second cannot be applied. From this point, Rawls says
that, liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty (Rawls, 1971:302).
And he counts two cases concerning liberty as follow:
(a) A less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system
of liberty shared by all;
(b) A less than equal liberty must be acceptable to those with
the lesser liberty (Rawls, 1971:302).

On the other hand, the second principle of justice is prior to the principle of
efficiency and to that of maximizing the sum of advantages, he calls this as the
priority of justice over efficiency and welfare (Rawls, 1971:302).
Also, fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle. For Rawls, here also
there are two cases:
(a) An inequality of opportunity must enhance the
opportunities of those with the lesser opportunity;
(b) An excessive rate of saving must on balance mitigate the
burden of those bearing this hardship (Rawls, 1971:303).

The second formulation of justice which is called general conception of justice is

the starting point for Rawls, and from this conception he develops his two principles
which he makes more and more precise. If we look at the general conception of
justice, Rawls formulates it as: All social values liberty and opportunity, income
and wealth, and the bases of self-respect-are to be distributed equally unless an
unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyones advantage
(Rawls, 1971:62).
According to Rawls, persons in the original position would want the special
conception of justice to be applied in place of the general conception of justice
whenever social conditions all representative persons to exercise their basic liberties
(Sterba, 1991:10).
As mentioned above, Rawls emphasizes the justice both resulting from equality
and inequality under certain circumstances. Anything unfair means either equality is

18
not sustained for everyone, or persisting inequality is not to everybodys benefit. In
order to achieve fairness, every member of the society must have the basic rights and
duties and be free and equal.
To sum, the general conception of justice for Rawls is simply the difference
principle applied to all primary goods including liberty and opportunity and so no
longer constrained by other parts of the special conception (Rawls, 1971:83).
Finally, Rawls brings together the two principles of justice and he says that:
Taking the two principles together, the basic structure is to be arranged to maximize
the worth to the least advantaged of the complete scheme of equal liberty shared by
all. This defines the end of social justice (Rawls, 1971:205).
Freeman makes an explanation for the words of Rawls:
The end of social justice is not simply that everyones equal freedoms be
formally protected but that the basic liberties be effectively exercisable by all to
the degree that the worth of freedom to the worst off is maximal (Freeman,
2003:9).

19
 CHAPTER 2

THE DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE

The condition of the least advantaged members of society takes a crucial role in
Rawlss justice theory. According to him, a just social order is not established to
increase the wealth of the advantaged members of society which he calls the better
off. Instead of this, difference principle requires to arrange the social and economic
inequalities for the favor of the least advantaged members of society which he calls
the worse off. As Parijs says that, The core of the principle is a simple and
appealing idea: that social and economic inequality should be evaluated in terms of
how well off they leave the worst off (Parijs, 2003:200).
Also Pogge takes attention to the other side of the difference principle that such
as; As a first approximation, then, one can say that the difference principle favors,
for a given society and time period, those designs of socioeconomic institutions that
would produce the best possible worst socioeconomic position (Pogge, 2007:107).
Rawls formulates the difference principle as follows: Social and economic
inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to
everyones advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all (Rawls,
1971:60). The second principle of justice depends on the distribution of income and
wealth. For Rawls, the distribution of income doesnt need to be equal, but it must be
to everyones advantage and at the same time the positions of authority and the
offices of command must be easy to reach for everyone. (Rawls, 1971:61). Fair
equality of opportunity gives a chance to get a good job.
He elucidates the difference principle by giving an example of the distribution of
income between social classes. He assumes a redistribution of property between an
unskilled worker and a man who has much property before the redistribution. For
Rawls, it is just even if the unskilled worker takes much property than the man.
Because the initial situation is unequal. Rawlss main argument is that the liberty,
opportunity, wealth and income is distributed by chance and some of the people have
more chance and some of them have nothing. So, it is not just for all.

20
 The difference principle does not propose a certain equality of all parts of society,
instead a just redistribution. In Rawlss perception, a just redistribution is the one that
provides equal benefits even to the least advantaged of members. The difference
principle is completely related to the least advantaged of the society.
As stated above, an inequality can be acceptable only if it is in favor of the
members of the least advantaged of society. Therefore, the justice can be sustained
only through the application of the difference principle.
According to Rawls, the difference principle requires for a distribution of all
social values which he counts as liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and
the bases of self-respect that assigns everyone the same. To everyone the same
does not necessarily mean that in a distribution everyone gets allotted exactly the
same social values or primary goods. It can also mean that everyone gets a bundle of
goods which he considers as at least as good as the bundles that the others get
(Knoll, 2012:6). For Rawls, the distribution of social values must be acceptable and
fair for everyone and it is possible for Rawls that The difference principle makes an
implicit reference to equal division as a benchmark (Rawls, 2005:16).
It may be deduced that Rawls aims to arrange the social and natural inequalities to
maintain the justice in the society. For example: Suppose that there are two girls,
both from Turkey. While one of them is born in the better-off province of stanbul
city, the other is born in a poor conditioned village of Ar. Considering the
comparison between the natural conditions of both cities, it can be easily observed, in
Ar, winter continues for six months and there is no qualified school education nor
is any teacher volunteering to work in the toughest circumstances. However, this
changes in stanbul city where the infrastructures are well established along with all
kinds of social easiness provided. The girl born in Ar might never get the
opportunities to have a regular education, or at best, she might learn how to read in
time. Besides, her fathers income partly determined in proportion to the poor
conditions of his residential areas, may not be much enough to afford her basic
school needs.
Yet, another girl born in a developed part of stanbul city, can have more choices
to go to a well-equipped school mainly due to her fathers income which is again
related in proportion to the habitat.
21
 As a conclusion, it is not expected that both of the girls reach the same success.
The crucial point here seems to exist between deep inequalities represented from
birth among persons. Economic and social circumstances which people are born into
or acquire later on in life determine the expectations of life.
In such conditions examples above, the wealth and income are not distributed in
an equal way. By considering the difference principle, if redistribution comes into
occurance, it must be to the benefit of the least advantaged. The distribution of
socioeconomic means, however, is constrained by the difference principle, which
demands that social institutions should give rise to all and only those socioeconomic
inequalities that raise the lowest socioeconomic position (Pogge, 2007:94).
An example may make easier to understand the difference principle. Suppose that
a society consists of a and b. In the first distribution a and b take 100. In the second
distribution a takes 105 and b takes 110. There are two different choices and a
rational person does not choose the first choice because it is less than the second
choice. After the veil of ignorance raises up, the participants would know that even if
they are the person who takes the less money in the second choice, it is more than the
first choice.
Another example which relates to the equal shares is the share of the pie. Rawls is
looking for the just ways for cutting the pie in an equal way. The cutter of the pie
will also have a part of the pie. Suppose that he will take the last part; that is why, he
cuts the last part bigger than the others. In this condition, how can it be guaranteed
that all parts of the pie will be equal? Rawls asserts that if the cutter does not know
which part of the pie will be his own, he will cut the pie in an equal way.
Rawls counts the rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, income and
wealth as the chief primary goods in a society that they are social primary goods.
Other primary goods can be counted as health, vigor, intelligence and imagination,
these are natural goods. Rawls supposes a hypothetical initial arrangement in which
all the social primary goods are distributed in an equal way.
Everyone has similar rights and duties, income and wealth shared in a way that it
is advantageous of everyone. This statement provides us a model (in Rawlss
terminology; benchmark) for judging the improvements in the society.

22
 According to Rawls, if any inequalities of wealth and organized powers would
make all more advantaged than in this hypothetical starting position, then they adopt
it the general conception (Rawls, 1971: 62). From Rawlss words it is understood
that an equal distribution provides a benchmark and it is used as a measure to
mitigate the inequalities.

2.1. The Underlying Central Moral Intuition

As we said before, Rawls supposed the people who are in the original position as
moral persons. Moral persons are defined as persons that have a conception of the
good and a capacity for a sense of justice (Rawls, 1999:270).
Rawls aims to eliminate external factors which cause inequalities between
members of society. One of the fundamental tenets of John Rawls A Theory of
Justice is the claim that we should seek a conception of justice that nullifies the
accidents of natural endowment ... as counters in quest for political and economic
advantage (Gorr, 1983:1).
For Rawls, the first problem of justice is to determine the principles to regulate
inequalities and to adjust the profound and long lasting effects of social, natural,
historical contingencies (Rawls, 1999:258). There is no a better way to cut the
effects of the social contingencies except the veil of ignorance. Rawls explains this
situation as it is one of the fixed points of our moral judgments that no one
deserves his place in the distribution of natural assets any more than he deserves his
initial starting place in society (Rawls, 1971:311). This judgment is central to his
egalitarian conception of justice. Not only is his principle of redress derived from
it but the closely linked difference principle (Knoll, 2012:17).
For Rawls the phrases everyones advantage and equally open to all are
ambigious. There are different understandings of second principle which they are
independent from each other. According to Rawls, the second principle has four
possible meanings, as follows:

23
 Everyones advantage
______________________________________________
Equally open Principle of efficiency Difference Principle
__________________________________________________________________
Equality as careers System of Natural Natural Aristocracy
open to talents Liberty
Equality as equality of Liberal Equality Democratic Equality
fair opportunity
Rawls firstly tries to explain the natural liberty. From this point of view, the first
part of the second principle is taken into consideration as the principle of
efficiency adapted to apply to the basic structure of society. The second part of the
second principle is considered as positions open to able persons. The principle of
efficiency is called Pareto optimality because it holds that a configuration is
efficient whenever it is impossible to change it so as to make some persons (at least
one) better off without at the same time making other persons (at least one) worse
off (Rawls, 1971: 67).
In the system of natural liberty, it is presupposed that the requirement of the first
principle, namely, equal liberty is ensured and there is a free market economy. But if
the equality of opportunity does not secure for social positions, the natural and social
contingencies will have an effect above it. Hence, according to Rawls, the system of
natural liberty is injustice because it allows the social contingencies to effect on the
distributive shares. The existing distribution of income and wealth is the cumulative
effect of prior distributions of natural assets as these have been developed or left
unrealized and their use favored or disfavored over time by social circumstances and
such chance contingencies as accident and good fortune. Intuitively, the most
obvious injustice of the system of natural liberty is that it permits distributive shares
to be improperly influenced by these factors so arbitrary from a moral point of view
(Rawls, 1971:72). Rawls, above counts three factors which have effects on the
distributive shares. They are natural talents, social circumstances, and finally, chance
contingencies as accident and good fortune. These of all are morally arbitrary for
Rawlss understanding of justice.

24
 The interpretation of the liberal equality adds a more condition of the principle of
fair equality of opportunity in addition to the requirement of positions open to
capable persons. Besides the openness of the positions to talents, a fair chance to
reach them is obtained. Rawls wants to cut the effects of the chance or social
contingencies on the life of persons. But both of the natural liberty and liberal
equality give a room to the chance in the social conditions.
According to Rawls, the same abilities and skills should carry the same feasibility
of success. Rawlss idea is clear. Suppose that there are two persons who have the
same ability and the same desire to use their talents; they should have the same
chances of success in spite of belonging to the different social classes. Each member
of society should have equal chance to use their talents or skills. Despite the
differences in their economic classes into which they are born, they should have
equal chances of achievement.
Rawls sees fair equality of opportunity as a necessary condition for a just society
that
those who are at the same level of talent and ability, and have the same
willingness to use them, should have the same prospects of success regardless
of their initial place in the social system. ... Chances to acquire cultural
knowledge and skills should not depend upon ones class position, and so the
school system, whether public or private, should be designed to even out class
barriers (Rawls, 1971:73, cf. Rawls, 2001:44).

Pogge, interprets the fair equality of opportunity as such that Fair equality of
opportunity demands that the basic structure be designed to prevent these social
factors from having a causal impact. It forbids not merely the class-correlated
inequalities Rawls mentions but also race- and gender-correlated inequalities in
opportunity (Pogge, 2007:104).
According to Rawls, the liberal interpretation of the two principles is inadequate
because it fails to remove the effect of social contingencies, it lets the distribution of
wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution of talents and skills.
Even if it works to perfection in eliminating the influence of social
contingencies, it still permits the distribution of wealth and income to be
determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents. Within the limits
allowed by the background arrangements, distributive shares are decided by the
outcome of the natural lottery; and this outcome is arbitrary from a moral
perspective (Rawls, 1971:65, 73-74).
25
 Natural aristocracy is also away from the equality between members of society.
Social contingencies and natural chances determine the distributive shares in natural
aristocracy system. Rawlss main aim is to find an interpretation of the two
principles in which distributive shares are not influenced by the social contingencies
and the lottery of natural assets (Rawls, 1999:162).
The social dependency implicit in Rawls's idea of "natural aristocracy might be
deemed infinitely more degrading than the natural dependency that is arguably
implicit in the Difference Principle itself, which makes the income of the least
advantaged dependent in large part on (properly motivated) able and ambitious
people (Brooks & Freyenhagen, 2005:46).
According to Rawls, the democratic equality interpretation of the second principle
is the best, as he says in his own words we try to find a rendering of them which
does not weight mens share in the benefits and burdens of social cooperation
according to their social fortune and their luck in the natural lottery, it is clear that
the democratic interpretation is the best choice among the four alternatives (Rawls,
1971:65).
The democratic interpretation is a combination of the principle of fair equality of
opportunity with the difference principle. Democratic equality removes the
uncertainty of the principle of efficiency by selecting a particular position from
which the social and economic inequalities of the basic structure are to be judged.
(Rawls, 1971:75).
For Rawls, two principles of justice are chosen including the difference principle
not applied to increase the advantage of the better off, instead the advantage of the
less fortunate people. Differences in wealth and income are just if only they are to
the advantage of the representative man who is worse off (Rawls, 1999:162-163).

2.2. The Principle of Redress

The principle of redress is the principle that undeserved inequalities call for
redress; and since inequalities of birth and natural endowment are undeserved, these
inequalities are to be somehow compensated for (Rawls, 1971:100). From this
quote, it is understood that, for Rawls, since the inequalities come from birth and

26
native assets are undeserved, the principle of redress signifies that the undeserved
inequalities in a society require a redress.
Rawls remarks that natural inequalities are arbitrary from a moral point of
view (Rawls, 1971:72) and thus should not be permitted to influence the
deliberations of those in the original position and undeserved (Rawls, 1971:100)
and therefore in need of redress (Gorr, 1983:3). The principle of redress is to be
understood as an egalitarian principle as it negates the undeserved inequalities
between people and aims at establishing equality among them as far as possible
through state redistributions (Knoll, 2012:17).
The redress principle requires that each member of society should be treated in
an equal way. The real equality of opportunity can be provided if and only if by the
way of giving more importance to the less advantage of society. Rawls gives an
example to clarify the meaning of the principle of redress. According to the principle
of redress, resources could be spent on the education of the less intelligent rather than
the more intelligent, at least a particular time of life, such as the early years of school
(Rawls, 1971: 100-101).
According to Rawls, anyone in the society does not deserve more natural talents
or more advantaged starting place. But it does not require one that, try to even out
handicaps, to eliminate these differences in natural capacities. For Rawls, there is
another way to deal with them. The basic structure can be arranged so that these
contingencies work for the good of the least fortunate (Rawls, 1971: 101-102).
From Rawlss words, it is clearly understood that, Rawls wants to mitigate the
differences of social and economic situation between members of society by
arranging the basic structure of society for the favor of the least advantaged part of
the society.
For Rawls, the redress principle is not the only requirement of justice, or the only
aim of social justice. When we consider the redress principle very carefully against
the principle which advises to advance the common good or the average of standard
of life, before make a decision, we take into account the redress principle. It carries
another aspect of the Rawlsian ujustice. It must be understood clearly that the
difference principle is not of course the principle of redress (Rawls, 1971:101).

27
 For Rawls justice is not primarily about redressing inequalities imposed by
nature or misfortune. Rather justice is primarily about providing each person
with resources that are sufficient to their realizing their moral powers of free,
responsible, and rational agency (Freeman, 2003:8).

When we look at the moral status of the natural assets such as (intelligence,
artistry etc.) in Rawls justice theory we see that the distribution of such assets, is
certainly morally arbitrary in Rawls understanding of justice. Because the one who
has the native assets by birth, does not deserve it. The natural assets do not reflect the
moral worth of the person. Rawls sees the natural talents as common asset and thinks
that they must be used for the advantage of the least favored. (Rawls, 2001:57, cf.
Pogge, 1989:78).
Rawls also emphasizes the effects of the social contingencies, on the fruit of
natural assets. Not only our conception of ourselves, and our aims and ambitions,
but also our realized abilities and talents, reflect our personal history, opportunities
and social position, and the influence of good and ill fortune (Rawls, 2001:57).
And according to Rawls, the expectations of life depends on the social class of the
person. For him, the expectations of those should not be affected by their social
positions. For that reason, the basic structure as a social and economic regime is
an arrangement that arouses further desires and aspirations in the future (Rawls,
2001:56).
In the example of education, the difference principle would use for (allocate)
resources in education in order to advance the long-term expectations of the least
advantaged. And, if this condition is achieved by the way of giving more attention to
those with more native assets, here, more intelligent, then, it is permissible and if it is
not, it cannot be acceptable (Rawls, 1971: 101).
Shortly, we may say that, Rawls neither aims to completely eliminate the
undeserved inequalities among social classes nor claims that the natural talents must
be rewarded. Rawls just support that to be used of endowments for the favor of the
less fortunate. The better endowed are encouraged to train their endowments
and use them in ways that contribute to the good of all, and in particular to the good
of the least endowed (Rawls, 2001:124).

28
 And also he says that Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are,
may gain from their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those
who have lost out. The naturally advantaged are not to gain merely because they are
more gifted, but for using their endowments in ways that help the less fortunate as
well (Rawls, 1971: 101-102).
Rawls defines a social system in which the difference principle is applied as
follows: no one gains or loses from his arbitrary place in the distribution of natural
assets or his initial position in society without giving or receiving compensating
advantages in return (Rawls, 1971: 102).
Rawls has a desire to reduce the inequalities of wealth and income between social
classes. In the original position there is a veil of ignorance which secures the
impartiality of the principles of justice. Rawls does not want for a thing which gives
birth to the inequalities between members of society. Instead, he prefer to a just
society where everyone is equal and there is no effect of social contingencies which
causes inequality.
According to Rawls, inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they
result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least
advantaged members of society (Rawls, 1971:15). Rawls is against any distribution
of wealth and authority by taking into account family of person or which social class
belongs. In a broad sense, it may be said that the social inequalities which are arising
from family or class position and economic inequalities which are arising from
differences of income and wealth and the last, natural inequalities which are arising
from differences in talents and skills.
Finally Rawls accepts that the natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor
social and economic differences are unjust; these are simply natural facts (Rawls,
1971: 102). For Rawls, the social system is not an unchangeable order and the design
of the institutions must be in accordance with the common benefit. Since the basic
structure of society is arranged for the revolt the accidents of nature and social
circumstances for everyone in the society, then, the institutions are just. (Rawls,
1971: 102).
In Rawls conception, no one can properly be said to deserve anything because
no one can properly be said to possess anything, at least not in the strong,
29
constitutive sense of possession necessary to the notion of desert (Sandel, 1998:85).
Rawls aspires to constitute a conception of justice that nullifies the accidents of
natural endowment and the contingencies of social circumstances (Rawls, 1971:
15). According to Rawls, since the natural distribution of talents, skills is not fair for
everyone, it must be accepted as common, collective, assets of the society and
it must be seen as a social asset to be used for the common advantage (Rawls,
1971: 101,179,107).

2.3. The Difference Principle

Rawls starts from a persons race, gender, talents, wealth and other natural and
social conditions which is called by Rawls as arbitrary from a moral point of view
(Rawls, 1971:15). And the effects of these all social conditions, for Rawls, must be
nullified by a just social arrangement. Then Rawls, introduces the original position
where the representatives are considered as moral agents because they have a sense
of goodness and sense of justice. The principles of justice are chosen behind the veil
of ignorance and they do not have particular knowledge about themselves such as
whether they have natural talents or not, whether they are rich or poor, which social
classes they belong to etc. Thus, the neutrality and independence of the principles
are guaranteed by the imaginary ignorance. The principles are not partial or in
favor of anyone else in the society through the way of choice of the principles. (Tan,
2004:55). Rawls asserts that his original position provides a representation of
impartiality (Young, 1990:101), because it defines impartiality from the standpoint
of the litigants themselves. It is they who must choose their conception of justice
once and for all in an original position of equality (Rawls, 1971: 190). Also, Barry
states that the difference principle is the result of justice as impartiality. Rawlss
theory of justice as fairness as the best known, the most influential and the most
fully developed variant of justice as impartiality (Barry, 1996:8).
Rawls claims that representatives who are self-interested rather than motivated by
cooperation and who abstract from their individual position about wealth and power
would choose a conception of justice that involves full democratic political
participation and restrictions on enterprise necessary to promote a high degree of

30
economic equality (Fisk, 1989:120). Rawls wants to determine how the benefits and
burdens of social cooperation are to be shared in an equal way between members of
the society. The revised statement of the two principles of justice which includes also
difference principle in Justice as Fairness: A Restatement as follows:
Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to
be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged
members of society (the difference principle) (Rawls, 2001:42-43).
The second part of the second principle of justice which is called difference
principle is the most arguable topics in Rawlss study. Rawls presents the difference
principle as a way to arrange the social and economic inequalities in a just society.
From this perspective, it is may clearly said that, the difference principle advises to
arrange the social and economic inequalities for the maximum benefit of the least
advantaged group in the society.
Difference principle, a system of social and economic inequalities is just only if
there is no feasible alternative institution under which the expectations of the worst-
off group would be greater (Scanlon, 1999:76). Here, Scanlon provides an
acceptable explanation for the difference principle. The difference principle is not
only applied to inequalities of wealth and income, in addition to these, it is to apply
to every inequalities of primary social goods (Scanlon, 1999:76).
The difference principle is applied to background of social institutions after the
basic liberties and equality of opportunity have been obtained. It would be unjust to
equalize the distribution of social goods by more than that specified by the
Difference Principle (Baynes, 1992:155).
Rawls indicates that people does not born into the same conditions, some of them
is regarded more lucky than others by concerning social, economic and cultural
status. All of these differences also effect the life expectations of the people.
According to Rawls, even the life expectations of the people should not depend on
social positions or talents of them. The state should make possible or attainable for
everyone that could live under fair conditions which is abstracted from outer factors.
Rawls states that, assuming the framework of institutions required by equal liberty
and fair equality of opportunity, the higher expectations of those better situated are
31
just if and only if they work as part of a scheme which improves the expectations of
the least advantaged members of society. (Rawls, 1971:75)
According to Rawls, a just social system must particularly concentrate on the
worse off. Because for Rawls, the social order is not to establish and secure the
most attractive prospects of those better off unless doing so is to the advantage of
those less fortunate (Rawls, 1971:75, cf. Fisk, 1989:195). In Rawlsian theory, the
most just society is the one in which the least-advantaged group, whatever its
composition, is at the highest level (Barry, 1989:217).
In view of these remarks, the difference principle requires a social system which
is advantaged of all or in other words, the most advantage of the least favored part of
the society. We may remember that Rawls says, if social and economic inequalities
are the benefit of the least advantaged, it is acceptable; otherwise not. We should
bear in mind that the difference principle in its final version doesnt talk about the
benefit of everyone but only about the least advantaged. For Rawls the
benefit of the least advantaged is connected to the benefit of everyone (Knoll,
2012:7). For Rawls, social cooperation is mutually advantageous. Rawls also
emphasize on the concept of fraternity so as to explain the difference principle.
the idea of not wanting to have greater advantages unless this is to the benefit of
others who are less well off (Rawls, 1971:105). Rawls gives the example of family
so as to clarify the side of fraternity of the difference principle. In the family, the
parts of the family rejects the principle of maximizing the sum advantages,
generally they do not want to gain more unless the rest also gains.
Rawls says that the difference principle can be regarded as an agreement to
consider the distribution of natural assets as common property and to share in the
benefits of this distribution whatever it turns out to be (Rawls, 1999:165, cf. Rawls,
1971:101).
It is an ideal of a society of free and equal citizens who take responsibility for
their ends and cooperate with one another on a basis of reciprocity and mutual
respect. It is this ideal, not the ideal of redressing undeserved inequalities of welfare,
resources, or luck, that is at the foundation of Rawlss view (Freeman, 2003:9).
The difference principle requires that the distribution of income and wealth may
not be equal, but it must be advantaged of everyone in the society, simultaneously,
32
the offices and positions must be open to everyone. In short, the arrangement of
social and economic inequalities must be in accordance with everyones benefits
(Rawls, 1971:61).
Rawls realizes the differences between social classes. It is a reality of the life,
that, on the one hand, there are many wealthy peoples who have great properties and
on the other hand, there are much than the richer, poor peoples who do not own any
property. In this situation Rawls asks that what can possibly justify this kind of
initial inequality in life prospects? (Rawls, 1971:78).
According to the difference principle, the inequalities of distribution of income
and wealth are justifiable, only if the difference in expectation is in the favor of the
man who have a worse prospect than the man who have a better. The inequality in
expectation is acceptable, only if, to reduce the differences of expectations would
make the least advantaged more worse off. Here, Rawls implies that, to accept the
exist inequality is permissible, so as to abstain from a larger inequality.
Difference principle requires that social and economic inequalities must be
arranged so as to be to everyones advantage. Let us suppose that in a society, the
members of the entrepreneurial class have a better expectations than the members of
the working class. According to Rawls, the better expectations of the entrepreneurial
class encourage them to do things which advance the long-term expectations of the
working class. Because, the better expectations act as incentives so that the
economic process is more efficient, innovation proceeds at a faster pace, and so on
(Rawls, 1971:78).
Pogge interprets the difference principle as follows: A basic structure that creates
socioeconomic inequalities must be to the greatest possible benefit of the lowest
socioeconomic position. The basic structure must be such that no practicable
alternative design of it would lead to a superior least advantaged socioeconomic
position. (Pogge, 2007:107).
According to Rawls, the difference principle is a principle of mutual benefit
(Rawls, 1971:102). The difference principle is presented as a principle for the fair
distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation, which suggests that
whatever people can produce solely by their talents, without relying on social
cooperation, should be theirs to keep (Parijs, 2003:224).
33
 On the other hand, Rawls also, takes attention to the other aspect of the
corporation as such inequalities in income and wealth are to be arranged for the
greatest benefit of the least advantaged simply means that we are to compare
schemes of cooperation by seeing how well off the least advantaged are under each
scheme, and then to select the scheme under which the least advantaged are better off
than they are under any other scheme (Rawls, 2001:59-60).
The difference principle, seems to be a fair basis on which those better
endowed or more fortunate in their social circumstances, could expect others to
collaborate with them when some workable arrangement is a necessary
condition of the good of all (Rawls, 1971:103).
There is an identity of interests since persons are not indifferent as to how
the greater benefits produced by their collaboration are distributed, for in order
to pursue their ends they each prefer a larger to a lesser share. A set of
principles is required for choosing among the various social arrangements
which determine this division of advantages and for underwriting an agreement
on the proper distributive shares (Rawls, 1971:4).

The difference principle does, whereas the principle of average utility does
not, specify an attractive notion of reciprocity between the worse off and the
better off: The worse off accept the greater advantages of the better off, and the
better off accept that such inequality is allowable only insofar as it raises the
position of the worse off in absolute terms (Pogge, 2007:119).

Finally Rawls says that, a certain arrangement of the basic structure, certain
institutional forms are more appropriate for realizing the values of liberty and
equality when citizens are conceived as such persons, as having the requisite
powers of moral personality that enable them to participate in society viewed as a
system of fair cooperation for mutual advantage (Rawls, 1993:51).

2.4. The Difference Principle as the Principle of the Welfare State

In Leviathan, Hobbes says that men unable to maintain themselves by their
labour ought not to be left to the Charity of private persons; but to be provided
for, (as far-forth as the necessities of Nature require,) by the Lawes of the
Commonwealth (Hobbes) However, the major representatives of liberal traditions
such as Locke, Adam Smith, Kant and Mill support that to afford for the poorest

34
people when they are in a society is one of the roles of government (Freeman,
2007:86).
The role of government or the state is at a most arguable topic in politics. Some
thinkers supports that there is no necessity for a state to interfere with the society,
people must be left to be free. These thinkers are called libertarians such as Nozick.
On the other hand, there are other thinkers such as Rawls that they support the
interfere of the state of the process of the distribution. While Rawls argues for the
requirement for the state distribute the wealth in the same way for everyone, Nozick
sees the intervention of the state to the market as a violation of the basic rights and
the free exchange right. (Barry, 1995:162).
Rawls is usually understood as a welfare-state liberal (Sandel, 1982:66). And his
theory may be counted between as one of the social justice theories of welfare state.
(Yayla, 2000:71). He defends an equal distribution of liberties and income which is
able to achieve by the hand of the major institutions of the state.
The basic structure is the subject of justice and includes the political
constitution and the principal economic and social arrangements. Thus the
legal protection of freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, competitive
markets, private property in the means of production, and the monogamous
family are examples of major social institutions. Taken together as one scheme,
the major institutions define men's rights and duties and influence their life
prospects, what they can expect to be and how well they can hope to do.
(Rawls, 1971:7).

In the welfare state system, all kinds of services are provided on the basis of need,
wealth, political power and fair equality opportunity must be afforded by the state.
The Welfare State extends to the provision of general health and educational
services for everyone, including those who would be able to see to these matters for
themselves and their family, if they had to do so. The crucial features of the Welfare
State are that its services promote the well-being of citizens and are provided more or
less free of charge, or in other words through a system of insurance or taxation rather
than payment for services received (Campbell, 1988:86).
As we said before, Rawlss main aim is that to reduce the inequalities in the
society. According to him, the inequalities must be favored of the less advantaged
people. The difference principle justifies the welfare state. The basic needs of all
citizens must be provided by the welfare state and this mechanism is processed in
35
accordance with the national minimum criteria. As Rawls says that, the condition of
the less advantaged people shows the quality of the justice in a society.
The equalities of basic liberties and fair opportunity are not capable of being
broken or violated, as difference principle requires that, the inequalities of those are
acceptable only if it is a benefit of the least advantaged in society. And the state is
requisite for the distributive shares, hence the natural contingencies lead to
differences between members of society.
For Rawls the taxation of the better-off members of society is necessary so as to
achieve a social minimum of resources for the worse-off members of society
(Campbell, 1988:89). According to Rawls the government guarantees a social
minimum either by family allowances and special payments for sickness and
employment, or more systematically by such devices as a graded income supplement
(a so-called negative income tax).(Rawls, 1971: 275).
The basic structure is regulated by a just constitution which guarantees the
liberties of equal citizenship. The government must provide the principal of fair
equality of opportunity in society. For example; the government tries to ensure
equal chances of education and culture for persons similarly endowed and motivated
either by subsidizing private schools or by establishing a public school system
(Rawls, 1971: 275).
Rawls mentions fairness of the background institutions hence he conceives that
how should be the background institutions of the welfare state in a just society. And
he counts four branches in establishing the background institutions of distributive
justice. They are respectively such as that; the allocation branch, the stabilization
branch, the transfer branch and finally the distribution branch. Yet mainly, he
concentrates on the transfer branch and distribution branch.
The allocation branch and the stabilization branch are together to maintain the
efficiency of the market economy generally (Rawls, 1971: 276).
The transfer branch is responsible for the social minimum and it guarantees a
certain level of well-being and honors the claims of need (Rawls, 1971: 276).
According to Rawls, the justice of distributive shares subject to the background
institutions and the distribution of total income, wages and transfers. Transfers take

36
very crucial importance on providing the social minimum. Because the total income
of the least advantaged is consisting of wages plus transfers.
For Rawls, the duty of the distribution branch is to preserve an approximate
justice in distributive shares by means of taxation and the necessary adjustment in the
rights of property (Rawls, 1971: 277). Taxation and acts of the distribution branch
are to maintain public revenue for public goods so as to carry out the difference
principle.

37
 CHAPTER 3

NOZICKS CRITIQUE OF THE DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE

Robert Nozick is accepted as one of the major representatives of the libertarian

understanding. As it is known that, libertarians (roughly) supports the liberty of
individuals and the understanding of the minimal state.
In Nozicks major study which is Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) minimal state
is defined such as that minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection
against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts and so on, is justified (Nozick,
1977: ix)
Nozick tries to find a moral basis for the understanding of the liberal justice and
he uses the Kantian moral principle as a reference point in his theory. According to,
Kantian moral principle, person is not treated as a mean or result but rather, a person
must be treated as an end which is rendered people as a human-being should be
respected and worthy. Also, Nozick believes in the Libertarian principle requires that
one shall never violate contracts, private property rights, or be guilty of fraud, theft.
Finally, Nozick adopts Lockean provision requires that the distribution of goods or
holdings or voluntary exchange should not make the others situation worse than
they were before the exchanges were made. All exchanges must be as Nozicks
word, productive. It means that both sides must benefit, or at least, not be harmed
by the exchange (Young, 1991:268).
One of the main criticism of Nozick directed at Rawls that is concerning the
minimal state. Rawlss difference principle requires an equal distribution of the basic
social primary goods which are liberty and opportunity, income and wealth and the
bases of self-respect. But, Nozick is against any distribution that is aimed to provide
justice between members of society. For Nozick, the citizens have possessions in
proportionate of their workings or endeavor. If a man gains his private property via a
legitimate way, he deserves it and there is no justification of the state intervenes.
Nozick sees this situation as a violation of human liberties. The redistribution of the
goods of the citizens cannot be justified for Nozick. Because, according to him,
proprietorship is one of the basic rights of the citizens. The state never gratuitously

38
distributes the income of the citizens. With Nozick view, the interfere of the state is
not justified to the assets of the citizens. Nozick stands up for liberties for everyone
and a limited state in Nozicks terminology, minimal state.
At his words, the state is only a night watchman that there is a limited
government and pure free market. The duty of the state (minimal state) is only to
protect the individuals basic rights for the possibility of any violation of them by
others. Nozick claims that the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be
justified. Any state more extensive violates peoples rights (Nozick; 1974:149). It
may be said that, Nozick tries to show that a non-minimal state does violate
individual rights, and therefore is unjust (Coleman, 1976:437).
For Nozick, we begin with entitlements that we are born with or acquire and
justice exists when people have what they are entitled to (Ryan, 1993:3-4) or as he
says that a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess
under the distribution (Nozick, 1971:151).
According to Nozick, there is no central distribution, no person or group
entitled to control all the resources, (jointly) deciding how they are to be doled out
instead of this, Nozick envisions that, in a free society, diverse persons control
different resources, and new holdings arise out of the voluntary exchanges and
actions of persons (Nozick, 1971:149).
Nozick construes the subject of justice in holdings and he divides into two main
branches the principles of justice that historical principles of justice and end-
result principles or end-state principles. Historical principles of justice implies
that previous conditions or human acts may constitute differential entitlements or
differential merits two things. Conversely, end-result principles which is unhistorical
principles of justice that supports that distribution must be done for specific ends
(Nozick, 1971:155). Robert Nozick argues that justice as fairness pays too much
attention to particular end-state patterns, losing sight in the process of the actual
transactions between people that led to those end-states. In other words, Nozick
claims that in order to take the distinction between persons really seriously, a theory
must pay more attention to what different persons do, and not treat them merely as
points on a distributional curve (Laden, 2005:52).

39
 Furthermore, Nozick subdivides the principles of justice to clarify the justice in
holdings that such as the patterned principles of justice and the unpatterned
principles of justice. For Nozick a principle of distribution is called patterned if it
specifies that a distribution is to vary along with some natural dimension, weighted
sum of natural dimensions, or lexicographic ordering of natural dimensions
(Nozick, 1971:156). The principle of distribution in accordance with moral desert is
a patterned historical principle. The principle of distribution in accordance with
needs is a patterned principle. The principle of distribution in accordance with
usefulness is a patterned principle etc. These examples may be extended more and
more. In shortly it can be stated that according to patterned principles property
should be distributed according to persons moral merit, usefulness to society, need,
intelligence, race, or some mixture or combination of these (Pogge, 1989:16).
Nozick wants to take attention to that, any principles which give various
prerequisites for distribution of goods are patterned principles. In this point of view,
the principle of entitlement is not patterned. Because the distribution of goods is not
carried out by any prerequisite. The set of holdings may occur in many various ways
such as gift, investment, income, loan, gambling and so on.

3.1. The Entitlement Theory

Nozick criticizes Rawls for his egalitarianism and he presents as an alternative his
entitlement theory of justice (Mandle, 2009:187). Nozicks theory of justice
depends on the entitlement theory in which he rules out the state of free markets by
holding off its involvement of the market economy and limited its duty such as
protection of the agreements in which secure the basic rights of citizens.
Nozicks entitlement theory consist of three branches, theory of just acquisition of
holdings or original acquisition, the theory of just transfer of holdings, and the theory
of rectification. (Nozick, 1974:150). The original acquisition is related to how
holdings come about by legitimate actions. The second, transfer theory related to
how the transfer of holdings is passed from one person to another. Finally, the theory
of rectification is related to past events. Some persons may acquire new holdings in

40
injustice ways such as theft, fraud, hoax. If in past holdings, there was any violation
of the first two principles of justice in holdings, then it must be rectified.
According to entitlement theory, a persons proprietorship of goods is legitimate
only if it has gained by a chain of legitimate acquisitions, transfers and rectifications.
(Kavka, 1991:299).
In entitlement theory respect, if individual ownership and property rights are
acquired or transferred without resorting to force or fraud by the existence of an
honest and open manner, then it complies with justice. In view of Nozicks
understanding of justice, the redistribution of goods cannot be morally justified.
For Nozick, proprietorship can not be gained from a way except individual
endeavor. Nozicks main objection to Rawls is that, difference principle may cause
inequalities or injustice in society via distribution of goods. According to Nozick, in
even if under equal conditions are provided for everyone, still some of them gains
more than others by working hard or using their reason and skills. In such conditions,
any transfer from rich to the poor means violation of the liberties. The state must not
interfere the market economy. The duty of the state is to prevent the violation of
individuals rights by others. If the state goes beyond this duty and tries to
materialize welfare in the society by the distribution of goods or transfer of assets
from rich to the poor then the state would be guilty for violating the individual rights
and the free exchange right.
Nozick criticizes the necessity of cooperation between individuals that Rawls
assumes this in the process of forming the principles of justice. According to Nozick,
there is conflict as well as cooperation in the society. And he asks that why social
collaboration reveals a distributive justice. Nozick sees cooperation or transfers as a
constraint of state and also it is a threat to the liberties.
For Nozick, patterned and end-result principles of justice in holdings may caused
for the ending of the liberties. For example, a patterned principle of justice may
require continuously a precondition such as incomes of all must be equal. And to
provide and sustain this condition, the state would must interfere liberty of the
citizens (Nozick, 1974:163). A distribution which is done in accordance with the free
market rules is just for Nozick, because distribution is not done by the state or
anyone, it is by itself.
41
 However, the holdings or possessions of the people are acceptable as just since
they are obtained by legitimate actions. It means that it must be voluntary and no one
would become worse than the previous situation. Nozick is against any kinds of
monopoly that domination of government or person on the production or trade. He
stands on the free market economy which everyone has equal liberties and rights.
For Nozick, the entitlement theory of justice in the distribution is historical,
whether a distribution is just depends on how it came about (Nozick, 1974:153).
Campbell says that, Nozick favors what he calls a historical rather than an end-state
approach to justice in which justice is a matter of how people come possess their
holdings, rather than a matter of measuring holdings against some characteristics of
the holders such as their needs or their moral merits- which would enable us to
think in terms of a particular pattern as the end-state of the distributive process in
which holdings are matched with the present characteristics of the individuals
concerned (Campbell, 1988:16-17).
In Rawlss understanding of justice, the distribution of income and wealth in a
society is accepted just since the institutions of the state are arranged so as to achieve
the maximum benefit of the least advantaged members of the society. But for
Nozick, because people are rational and should be respected human beings, state
must not interfere the goods of the citizens since they gain their properties with their
own skills and choices. If state interferes the goods of the citizen so as to
redistribution, it would be a violation of the free exchange right. Nozicks
entitlement theory viewed as a defense of private property against the redistributive
activities of the state (Kavka, 1991:309).
Suppose that there are two citizens in a society and while one of them are working
hard and save his gains, the other prefer to have a leisure time. Along in time, the
working man becomes a better condition than previously via his work hard. The
other citizen becomes more poor. Now, for Nozick, the rich man should not have any
necessity to pay for the poor man. Because they live their lives with their choices and
there is no need for interfering their choices to provide welfare. The rich man is not
responsible for the poor man for Nozick for both of them rational and have a capacity
to choose what is good for them.

42
 I think, here, Nozick misses out something that everyone does not bear in equal
conditions. Besides social and economic differences there may be also natural
inequalities such as a person may be handicapped or disabled. On the other hand,
there are orphans or alone people who are old, and homeless people. I think society
has a responsibility above them. Since all people are respected and worthy hence
they are human being then the people who are well off should care about the worse
off in the society.

3.2. Self-ownership
According to Nozick end-state and most patterned principles of distributive
justice institute (partial) ownership by others of people and their actions and labor.
These principles involve a shift from the classical liberals notion of self-ownership
to a notion of (partial) property rights in other people (Nozick, 1993, 111).
Nozick argues that a person owns his own body and natural abilities and is
therefore entitled to do what he likes with the fruits of his labors, quite irrespective of
whether or not he may be said to deserve them (Campbell, 1988:159).
According to Nozick, everyone must respect voluntary acquisition and transfer if
there is no coercion or a violation of the principles of justice in holdings. If the
acquisition of goods is provided in a just legitimate manner, then it is just.
According to Nozick, every member of the society has a private property right and
the state cannot violate the rights of the citizen. The duty of the state is to protect
these rights.
Nozick adopts the Lockean principle that one acquires property rights to
resources and their products by mixing ones labor with those resources and he
claimed this was justified provided that one left enough and as good for others
(Kavka, 1991:299). In Nozicks respective, a person may get a part of land since this
changed sitution would not give harm others or make them worse-off than previous.
Also, to accept this situation as just, (holding the land) the remaining lands must be
enough and as good for others. Nozick reads Lockean proviso as an original
acquisition is legitimate, if it gives no harm to another, namely render the condition
of others worse off. (Kavka, 1991:299).

43
 The acquisition of property must be done in legal ways. Nozick objects the
monopoly understanding that it makes the position of people worse. He seems the
redistribution of incomes as an interference of the state to the rightss of the citizen.
According to him, the right of self ownership can not be eliminated by state to
provide welfare or equality in the society.

3.3. Common Assets

Aristotle takes attention to the multiple meanings of the merit and he states that
For everyone agrees that justice in distribution must be in accordance with
some kind of merit, but not everyone means the same by merit; democrats think
that it is being a free citizen, oligarchs that it is wealth or noble birth and
aristocrats that it is virtue. (Aristotle, 2000: 86)
Also, Rawls is realized that the meanings of desert is changing from person to
person and there is no a prerequisite criteria to define it in a certain way. There is a
tendency for common sense to suppose that income and wealth, and the good things
in life generally, should be distributed according to moral desert. Justice is happiness
according to virtue. [] Now justice as fairness rejects this conception. Such a
principle would not be chosen in the original position. There seems to be no way of
defining the requisite criterion in that situation (Rawls, 1971:310). Rawls is against
the idea of desert hence justice cannot be based on the desert. Rawls believe in that
no one can strictly speaking be said to deserve anything. (Sandel, 1998:139).
Because no one deserves his place in the distribution of natural assets any more than
he deserves his initial starting place in society (Rawls, 1971:311). For Rawls,
natural endowments and assets are undeserved and therefore they are arbitrary from
a moral point of view.
According to Nozick,
people will differ in how they view regarding natural talents as a common
asset. Some will complain, echoing Rawls against utilitarianism, that this
does not take seriously the distinction between persons; and they will wonder
whether any reconstruction of Kant that treats peoples abilities and talents as
resources for others can be adequate. (Nozick, 1974:228)

According to Rawls talents and capabilities are common assets to be used for the
common advantage of society and especially for the least advantaged members of
44
society. Nozick strongly disagrees with this moral judgment and argues that people
own their talents and capabilities and deserve the full income they can do with them.
The only requirement of income to be just, it should be acquired or transferred in a
legitimate way.

3.4. The Separateness of the People

Rawls constructs his idea of justice around the principle of the separateness of
persons; each individual is a separate life, and a separate centre of moral value. The
apparent rationality of aggregating the welfare of each individual in order to define
the social welfare is illusory. There is no such entity as society to experience this
well-being.
The idea of the primacy of liberty (and the separateness of persons on which it
relies) owes much to a Kantian outlook, according to which no one can be used as a
mere means to the welfare of others (Brooks, 2005:4). Rawls rejected
utilitarianism as providing the principles of justice, because- as he famously put it-
"Utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons (Brooks,
2005:4).
It is a serious failing of cosmopolitan accounts of distributive justice that they
ignore the importance of social cooperation and assume distributive justice as asocial
and apolitical.
Like Nozicks libertarianism, they regard distributive justice as determined
pre-cooperatively, and see social and political cooperation themselves as
simply arbitrary facts, irrelevant to the central questions of distributive
justice. But social cooperation is not just one way, rather it is the only
possible way that economic value is created and goods and services are
produced (Freeman, 2006:258).

3.5. Taxation In Order To Finance the Welfare State

According to Rawls, income and wealth should not be distributed in Rawlss
terminology, in a morally arbitrary way. People have different incomes and since the
contingencies of the society have an effect on the life of man, the state should
redistribute to provide wealth. For Rawls, the social and economic inequalities must
be distributed in a way that, it must be favored of the least advantaged members of
the society.
45
 On the other hand, from the point of view of the entitlement theory of Nozick,
redistribution is a serious matter indeed, involving, as it does, the violation of
peoples rights. [] Taxation of earnings for labor is on a par with forced
labor. Some people find this claim obviously true: taking the earning of n
hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; is like forcing the person to
work n hours for anothers purpose (Nozick, 1974:168-169).

Nozick makes taxation seems a matter of taking from people the benefits they
themselves produced. Being forced to pay taxes is, for Nozick, equivalent to
being the governments slave for a certain number of days each year. [] To
refuse to pay taxes is not to keep what belongs to you but to withhold what
belongs to another. Not taxation but tax rebellion is theft. (Davis,
1991:291).

Nozick is opposing all forms of income redistribution, and therefore advocating

such inhumane policies as abolition of all government programs using tax revenues
to relieve poverty (Harsanyi, 2008:73).

46
 CONCLUSION
In this work, we tried to answer the question of how a society can be formed in a
just way which is also the main problem of the A Theory of Justice by John Rawls.
For Rawls, providing just in the society, could be if the principles of just should be
chosen. He envisages an imaginary situation by using the social contract theories as a
mean. According to this situation, people would choose the principles of justice and
they will follow them. The principles of justice are chosen behind the veil of
ignorance and they do not have particular knowledge about themselves such as
whether they have natural talents or not, whether they are rich or poor, which social
classes they belong to. The conditions of the choosing the principles of justice are
such that they secure the impartiality of the principles. So they are valid for
everyone, they do not bear any properties that convey an individual desire or
preference. Since no one knows that in what measures they would acquire the rights
and liberties, income and wealth, opportunities and authorities, they would choose
the principles that involve the most benefit of the least advantaged of the society.
Because they do not know they are rich or poor and since the possibility of being
poor is also available for them, they would choose the principle which is required
that everyone should be treated in the same manner. According to Rawls,
inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating
benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society
(Rawls, 1971:15).
Nozick wrote his major book Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) as a counter study
of Rawlss A Theory of Justice. And he defends the entitlement theory of justice
opposing to Rawlss difference principle. In a broad sense, Rawlss difference
principle requires that social and economic inequalities should be arranged in the
favor of the least advantaged people in the society. In order to achieve this, the state
should use the way of transfer from the rich to the poor. Nozick is against Rawlss
thoughts concerning the redistribution of the goods. According to Nozick, the states
interference of the holdings of the citizen cannot be justified in no ways. The state
should not interfere the citizens life which they choose how to lives.

47
 For Nozick, the citizens have possessions in proportionate of their workings or
endeavor. If a man gains his private property via a legitimate way, he deserves it and
there is no justification of the state intervenes. Nozick sees this situation as a
violation of human liberties.
Finally, it could be said that, both of the thinkers well constructs their theories in
the light of their view. But, since they have explained the justice in the different
meanings and so their precedences are also changing. While Rawls supports the
welfare state and give government crucial roles to provide justice and equality in the
society, Nozick is against the idea of the welfare state because he supports a minimal
state which he calls a just state as only a night watchman which protects the
citizens not to harm each other.

48
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aristotle, (2000), Nicomachean Ethics, translated and edited by Roger Crisp, New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Barry, Brian, (1989), Theories of Justice, A Treatise on Social Justice, Volume 1,

California: University of California Press.

________________, (1996), Justice as Impartiality, New York: Oxford

University Press.

Baynes, Kenneth (1992), The Normative Grounds of Social Criticism: Kant,

Rawls and Habermas, Albany: State University of New York Press.

Barry, Norman P. (1995), An Introduction to Modern Political Theory,

Houndmills: Macmillan Press.

Brooks Thom and Freyenhagen Fabian (eds.) (2005) The Legacy of John Rawls,

New York: Continuum Books.

Coleman, J. S., Frankel, B., and Phillips, D. L., (1976), Robert Nozick's Anarchy,

State and Utopia, Theory and Society, Vol 3, No 3, pp. 437-458.

Davis, Michael (1991), Nozicks Argument for the Legitimacy of the Welfare

State, in J. Angelo Corlett (ed.), Equality and Liberty, Analyzing Rawls and Nozick,

New York: St. Martins Press, pp. 276- 297.

Freeman, Samuel (ed.) (2003), John Rawls- An Overview, The Cambridge

Companion to Rawls, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-61.

49
 ________________, (2006) Distributive Justice and The Law of Peoples, in Rex

Martin, David A. Reidy (eds.) Rawlss Law of Peoples, A Realistic Utopia?,Malden:

Blackwell Publishing, pp. 243-260.

________________, (2007), Rawls, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis

Group.

Fisk, Milton (1989), The State and Justice: An Essay in Political Theory, New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Gorr, Michael (1991), Rawls on Natural Inequality, in J. Angelo Corlett (ed.),

Equality and Liberty, Analyzing Rawls and Nozick, New York: St. Martins Press,

pp. 19-36.

Harsanyi, John C. (2008) John Rawlss Theory of Justice: Some Critical

Comments, in Marc Fleurbaey, Maurice Salles, John A. Weymark (eds.) Justice,

Political Liberalism and Utilitarianism, Themes from Harsanyi and Rawls, New

York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71-79.

Hobbes, Thomas (1958), Leviathan, New York: The Liberal Arts Press.

Kavka, Gregory S. (1991), An Internal Critique of Nozicks Entitlement Theory,

in J. Angelo Corlett (ed.), Equality and Liberty, Analyzing Rawls and Nozick, New

York: St. Martins Press, pp. 298-310.

Knoll, Manuel (2012), An interpretation of Rawlss difference principle as the

principle of the welfare state, Unpublished, transl. of Ist staatliche Umverteilung

gerecht? John Rawls Begrndung des Wohlfahrtsstaats, in: Michael Spieker (ed.):

Der Sozialstaat. Fundamente und Reformdiskurs, Baden-Baden, pp. 3963.

50
 Laden, Anthony Simon (2005), Taking The Distinction Between Persons

Seriously, in Brooks Thom and Freyenhagen Fabian (eds.) The Legacy of John

Rawls, New York: Continuum Books, pp. 50-66.

Mandle, John (2009), Rawlss A Theory of Justice: An Introduction, New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Miller, Richard (1991), Rawls and Marxism, in James P. Sterba (ed.), Justice:

Alternative Political Perspectives, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, pp.

158-167.

Nozick, Robert (1974), Anarchy, State and Utopia, New York/Oxford: Basic

Books/Basil Blackwell.

________________, (1993), Distributive Justice in Alan Ryan (ed.) Justice, New

York: Oxford University Press, pp. 95-116.

Parijs, Philippe Van (2003), Difference Principle, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The

Cambridge Companion to Rawls, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200-

240.

Pogge, Thomas (2007), John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, translated by

Michelle Kosch, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pogge, Thomas W. (1989), Realizing Rawls, New York: Cornell University Press.

Rawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge: Massachusetts: Harvard

University Press.

51
 ________________, (1993), Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical in

Milton Fisk (ed.), Key Concepts in Critical Theory: Justice, New Jersey: Humanities

Press, pp. 48-67.

________________, (1999), The Law of Peoples: with The Idea of Public

Reason Revisited, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

________________, (2001), Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

________________, (2005), Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia

University Press.

Ryan, Alan (1993) Justice, Introduction, New York: Oxford University Press.

Sterba, James P. (ed.)(1991), Introduction, Justice: Alternative Political

Perspectives, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, pp. 3-24.

Scanlon, T. M. (1999), Rawls Theory of Justice in Henry S. Richardson (ed.),

Development and Main Outlines of Rawlss Theory of Justice, New York: Garland

Publishing, pp. 53-89.

Sandel, Michael J. (1998), Liberalism and The Limits of Justice, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Tan, Kok-Chor (2004), Justice Without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism

and Patriotism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

52
 Wolff, Jonathan (1996), An Introduction to Political Philosophy, New York:

Oxford University Press.

Yayla, Atilla (2000), Liberal baklar: Totaliterizm, Adalet, Sosyalizm, Bilgi a,

nsan haklar, Liberalizm, Demokrasi, Ankara: Liberte.

Young, Fredrick C. (1991), Nozick and the Individualist Anarchist, in J. Angelo

Corlett (ed.), Equality and Liberty, Analyzing Rawls and Nozick, New York: St.

Martins Press, pp. 268-275.

Young, Iris Marion (1990), Justice and The Politics of Difference, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press.

53