Questions: The Difference Principle

Question 1

A society allows CEO salaries 50 times the minimum wage. Under the difference principle, this inequality is justified if and only if:

• A. It maximizes total societal GDP, growing the overall economic pie
• B. It benefits the least advantaged more than any more equal alternative would
• C. CEOs have earned it through superior talent and hard work
• D. A majority agreed to it under conditions of fairness

Answer: (B)

The difference principle is not a desert-based principle (option 2) and not utilitarian (option 0). It permits inequalities only when those inequalities leave the least advantaged better off than they would be under a more equal arrangement. The incentive effect — higher pay attracts better executives whose decisions raise wages at the bottom — is the canonical justification. If the inequality fails that test, it is unjust by Rawlsian lights regardless of merit.

Question 2

G.A. Cohen argues that Rawls's incentive-based defense of inequality is internally inconsistent. Which of the following best captures Cohen's critique?

• A. Talented people don't actually work harder when paid more, so the incentive argument is empirically false
• B. If talented people accept the difference principle as just, they should be willing to work equally hard for lower pay — the insistence on large differentials reveals that they are not acting from justice
• C. The difference principle ignores the claims of average citizens in favor of only the very poorest
• D. Inequality cannot benefit the least advantaged because wealth generated at the top rarely trickles down

Answer: (B)

Cohen's point is internal to Rawls's own framework. If talented people genuinely accept the principles of justice, they should be motivated by reciprocity — they owe their advantages to the cooperative social scheme. Insisting on high salaries as a condition for full effort means they are not acting from justice but from self-interest. The incentive argument 'works' only by assuming talented people won't act justly, which is itself a failure of justice at the personal level.

Question 3

The difference principle can require more inequality — not less — in cases where a more equal distribution would make the worst-off members of society worse off in absolute terms.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

This is the maximin logic at the core of the difference principle. If providing strong incentives for productivity genuinely raises the floor for the least advantaged (e.g., higher executive pay draws investment that raises wages and public revenues), the principle mandates allowing that inequality. Equality is not the goal — maximizing the position of the worst-off is the goal, and sometimes that requires significant inequality.

Question 4

Rawls's difference principle is a form of utilitarianism because both theories aim to maximize welfare in society.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

Rawls explicitly rejects utilitarianism. Utilitarianism aggregates welfare across individuals and allows sacrificing some people's interests to maximize the total. The difference principle focuses exclusively on the representative worst-off member and never trades their welfare for gains to others. Rawls argues this is what rational parties would choose behind the veil of ignorance — not maximizing the average outcome (which could leave them in misery) but securing the best possible floor.

Question 5

Why does the difference principle permit inequality rather than require strict equality, and what condition must any permitted inequality satisfy?

Model answer: The difference principle is not an equality principle — it is a conditional permission for inequality. Any degree of inequality is permissible (even required) if it benefits the least advantaged compared to what they would receive under a more equal distribution. The intuition is that incentive effects are real: suppressing all income differentials might shrink the economic pie so much that the worst-off receive less in absolute terms. The condition is strict: the inequality must actually help the worst-off, not merely fail to harm them or benefit the wealthy.

Students often read 'justice' as synonymous with 'equality' and are surprised that Rawls's framework can endorse significant inequality. The key is that the difference principle asks a comparative question — how does this arrangement compare to alternatives in terms of what it delivers to the least advantaged? It is not a principle about desert, utility, or equality for its own sake.