Much of this blog consists of noteworthy and interesting points that comprise my world-view. Sometimes I just point out obvious examples of what is right/wrong/absurd. And this is an example my untied notes.

I haven’t written this out yet, but it’s the skeleton for an argument against the Difference Principle in John Rawls’ Theory of Justice:

1. Social primary goods are the basic goods that are necessary for a happy life

2. Justice as fairness is a meritocracy

3. those who make a choice that leads to failure are not helped by the difference principle

4. those who fail by an unchosen disadvantage benefit

5. those who rise to the top by decision benefit

6. the majority is benefited (made happy) by the involuntary sacrifice of the few

7. The difference principle is a well-masked version of utilitarianism.

8. The difference principle is also vulnerable to “tyranny of the majority”

Anybody see anything wrong with it? I’m sure there is a lot that needs to be defined, dissected and fleshed out, but it is just the beginning.

No related posts.