Inequality should be permitted in the society only when it benefits the least favoured.This statement is based on the principle 2(b), i,e. the Difference Principle proposed by John Rawls in “ A Theory of Justice”.Owing to the fact that there is significant gulf between the rich and least advantaged ,based on lexical priority, his principles of Justice are arranged such that basic liberty of an individual cannot be renounced to create equality of opportunity or benefits.To save the egalitarean ideal,Rawls makes changes to the concept of pure equality and realignes the idea of inequality with the imperative that no one is left behind .The major thrust behind the given statement in the question concerning inequalities and benefit of least advantaged lies in the issue of benefitting the least advantaged group regarding their absolute position in the society .In this article,I would like to take a critical view towards the given statement.Although the difference principle can be criticised philosophically on the basis of strict equality, utilitarianism, liberatarian view and Luck Egalitarianism, I would like to criticize the given statement based on Egalitarian Ethos and Forced Redistribution arguments.
There is no wrong in accepting that greater income of some individuals in the society can be good if it helps the least advantaged ones to raise their standards.We must realise under what conditions?If these rise in inequalities bring “equality of outcome “ it can be justified. If individuals are performing jobs which are dangerous,full of risk and deserve extra compensation,we can consider inequalities arising out of this given they benefit the least advantaged.Now let us consider situations where we assume a Rawlsian well ordered society,in which people strictly follow the difference principle.In that case there can be rise in exploitative tendency among extremely highly paid individuals.If the top managers are paid highly when the least advantaged are benefitted, they can take advantage of blackmail for crazy high rewards. The high earning individuals in society earn more and in the process tackling the inequalities among least advantaged may be a great prospect but if they say we will work hard only when our compensation is increased further,it will lead to a resource imbalance for firms and the society over all.This type of increase in utility levels of wealthy along with compensation is at the core of bargaining especially in developing and least developed countries.Further there is no guarantee that these high rewards for top sections of the society and benefits for least advantaged will be in same proportion.So, I support this view that the difference principle should change the notion of inequality and benefits for least advantaged as highly talented rich individuals can try to bargain economic benefits in return.This makes it logical why scholars like Cohen have focused on a strict review of inequalities and benefit for least advantaged .
I would like to extend this objection of Cohen regarding review to a new dimension of forced redistribution in society.This may be specially relevant where tyrannical governments try to promote this form of redistribution in context of poor and least advantaged in underdeveloped or developing countries.Even if the high income individuals are ready to trickle down the benefits to least advantaged ones ,are the weaker sections prepared and ready to accept them?Let us take the example of a society where few least advantaged ones soak up all the generosity by government and high income individuals and translate it into a situation of apathy. For example a society full of drug addicts among least advantaged ones, may require great amount of resources towards building shelters, clinics and hospitals. If five to ten percent percent of the resources is arranged from extremely wealthy people giving up their luxuries, remaining money for this must be pulled out from rest ninety eight percent of upper middle class and lower middle class sections of the society. Even if the tyrannical government try to impose maximum restrictions on addiction, people may again fall prey to this menace again making it a vicious cycle. The simple issue here is are governments preparing the least advantaged people enough for their upliftment by creating a forced redistribution for Rawlsian society? There may be some genetic condition or addiction afflicting bottom one percent of the society such that any amount of resources diverted for their benefit would be worthless.If we try to impart inequalities in society such that no one gets ahead unless a section of “unprepared least advantaged people” in the society are benefitted aren’t we putting the growth and economic development of society as a whole to infinite ransom. We are not holding those weaker sections of society who knowingly do not want to contribute ( either due to addiction or incompetency)towards economic development in a Rawlsian society.Scholars like Nozick also think if the least advantaged have made a free choice to live the way they want,there is no need of forced redistribution by state in a society.
So based on objections by scholars like Cohen and Nozick,I think we need to propose a middle path to tackle this issue.I think we must consider the logic of justifying inequalities by giving up the overall well being and economic growth of the society for the sake of least advantaged ones only.We must take the threshold limit further to include lower middle class or middle class of the society.As we can see it’s not only the below poverty line (involving only least advantaged) but middle income trap adversely affecting the global economies. Involving middle class of the socities within the ambit of Rawlsian difference principle can help in promoting levelling up of the middle and least advantaged sections of the society so that we are working towards benefit of a much larger section of the society based on innovation ,incentive for hard work and high productivity rather than taking a skewed approach towards the benefit least advantaged sections.In nutshell, only those inequalities which motivate the incentive for hard work among middle and least advantaged sections of the society must be justified.