Key Arguments

• Broome quotes Rawls’s formulation from p. 302: 'Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are . . . to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.'
• He constructs three possible constitutions for India in 1800, specifying distributions: 'On Constitution (1) the Indians and British both get 100 On Constitution (2) the Indians get 120, the British 110 On Constitution (3) the Indians get 115, the British 140.'
• He claims 'It is clear that Rawls means the Difference Principle to favour Constitution (3). He sometimes (e.g. p. 152) describes the Difference Principle as a ‘maximin rule’, and (3) satisfies this rule.'
• However, he notes that Constitution (3) does not satisfy the quoted formulation: 'The least advantaged under Constitution (3) are the Indians, and the greater inequalities under (3), compared with (2), are not to the benefit of the Indians. They would have been better off under (2).'
• He concedes that 'Of course, the wording could be easily changed so as to state Rawls’s meaning more accurately', but insists that, as it stands, it misdescribes the choice in this example.

Source Quotes

The rest of this Appendix was written by John Broome, after we had discussed the points made above. In RAWLS, one of the principles of justice is the Difference Principle, that Rawls specifies like this (p. 302): Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are . . . to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. This formulation does not exactly express what Rawls intended by it.

This formulation does not exactly express what Rawls intended by it. Suppose India in 1800 could have had any of three constitutions. Each would have distributed other primary goods equally, but they would have distributed economic and social well-being as follows: On Constitution (1) the Indians and British both get 100On Constitution (2) the Indians get 120, the British 110On Constitution (3) the Indians get 115, the British 140. It is clear that Rawls means the Difference Principle to favour Constitution (3).

Each would have distributed other primary goods equally, but they would have distributed economic and social well-being as follows: On Constitution (1) the Indians and British both get 100On Constitution (2) the Indians get 120, the British 110On Constitution (3) the Indians get 115, the British 140. It is clear that Rawls means the Difference Principle to favour Constitution (3). He sometimes (e.g. p. 152) describes the Difference Principle as a ‘maximin rule’, and (3) satisfies this rule. But it does not satisfy the formulation I quoted above. The least advantaged under Constitution (3) are the Indians, and the greater inequalities under (3), compared with (2), are not to the benefit of the Indians.

But it does not satisfy the formulation I quoted above. The least advantaged under Constitution (3) are the Indians, and the greater inequalities under (3), compared with (2), are not to the benefit of the Indians. They would have been better off under (2). Of course, the wording could be easily changed so as to state Rawls’s meaning more accurately.

Key Concepts

• In RAWLS, one of the principles of justice is the Difference Principle, that Rawls specifies like this (p. 302): Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are . . . to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.
• Suppose India in 1800 could have had any of three constitutions. Each would have distributed other primary goods equally, but they would have distributed economic and social well-being as follows: On Constitution (1) the Indians and British both get 100On Constitution (2) the Indians get 120, the British 110On Constitution (3) the Indians get 115, the British 140.
• It is clear that Rawls means the Difference Principle to favour Constitution (3). He sometimes (e.g. p. 152) describes the Difference Principle as a ‘maximin rule’, and (3) satisfies this rule. But it does not satisfy the formulation I quoted above.
• The least advantaged under Constitution (3) are the Indians, and the greater inequalities under (3), compared with (2), are not to the benefit of the Indians. They would have been better off under (2).

Context

Beginning of John Broome’s contribution to Appendix H, where he criticizes the official wording of Rawls’s Difference Principle by presenting an India/Britain distribution example that exposes a gap between the wording and Rawls’s intended maximin rule.