(Click here to continue on the main path)

I have some questions about the second principle.

First of all, Rawls says that an increase in inequality must help the least well off group in society. But I don't see the point of being against a policy that helps some people just because it doesn't help the worst off group. Suppose it does increase inequality but it doesn't take anything away from the worst off group. Why be against that? Someone is better off and no one is worse off. Some people call that progress.

Secondly, it seems that Rawls wants us to appraise each policy change to see if it increases inequality and, if so, whether it helps the worst off group. How are we supposed to do that? For example, what's the time frame to use? Must it help the worst off group within a year? Five years? Twenty-five?

I think this is important and not just fly specking or asking for more detail than anyone could give. Some economists believe that the wealth of a society builds in cycles. At the beginning of a cycle a few people introduce new ideas and new industries emerge. A few people make a great deal of money and accumulate a great deal of wealth. (Think Rockefeller or Bill Gates.) During this part of the cycle, inequality increases. But this phase is followed by a phase in which wealth spreads and inequality is reduced. This can take decades. The point is that unless we take a long view, we won't see that inequality in the short run can lead to greater equality down the line. It seems to me that Rawls is ignoring this. It may make his principle almost useless.

Besides, Rawls evidently believes that his principles would pass the reflective equilibrium test. In other words, they are more or less in accord with the strongly held moral judgments of the bulk of Americans. Is that true? It's an empirical question (unlike so much of what Rawls says). I don't think it's true at all.