(Return to main path )

I'm not sure that Rawls is correct that his second principle would be agreed to by the people in the Original Position. There are other possibilities that are at least as plausible.

Virginia Held, for example, argues that justice does not require us to go as far as Rawls goes. In her view, justice requires that people should have economic rights to whatever is needed for "basic necessities, a decent life, adequate self-development, and equal liberty, but not to a certain share in the whole of the economic product of a society. Beyond what is needed for a decent life, adequate self-development, and equal liberty, we have economic interests but not moral rights." [Virginia Held, Rights and Goods , p. 184.]

Rawls would prevent any increase in inequality, no matter how much it benefits some people, if it does not benefit the worst off group in society. Held's  does not require this. Once the minimum required by justice has been provided for all, our rights do not place a limit in inequality. Beyond the minimum required by our economic rights, economic activity should be judged on "teleological grounds." p. 186.

I don’t know whether I agree with either view; but I think Held's view is at least as plausible as Rawls'. How do we know that the people in the Original Position would reject Held's view?