(Click here to continue on the main path)

I think that Rawls' heart is in the right place when he proposes the difference principle (i.e. that an increase in inequality is only justified if it benefits the least well off group in society), but as a utilitarian I'm not sure I can agree with it.

Let's suppose we have the option to change to a new situation in which the least advantaged group will be slightly better off while all the other groups will lose a great deal. We have to assume that this is the only option we have. This change actually increases equality and also benefits the least well off group. Does Rawls' second principle require us to see this change as justified? To me this seems counterintuitive.

Or consider this example suggested by the philosopher John Hospers: Imagine a situation in which a new invention will greatly increase the wealth of a society. Almost everyone will be much better off, except for a tiny number of people who will be a little worse off. Does Rawls' principle require us to reject the invention? Is it so obvious that the change is unjust?

All of this is problemmatical for utilitarians. But it matters even for non-utilitarians considering Rawls' theory. Rawls believes that his principles will fit well with our considered moral judgments. But does preventing lots of people from gaining a lot in order to keep a few people from losing a little fit our considered moral judgments? I'm not so sure.