(Click here to continue on the main path)

You folks have made some philosophical objections to Rawls' theory. I want to suggest a more practical objection. I want to raise the question "Is it workable?" And bear in mind, Rawls clearly claims that his system is workable. He believes that it could be the basis of a stable democratic society.

Rawls claims that utilitarianism would strain our human capacity to abide by its rules because it requires each of us to agree to give up part (perhaps a large part) of our own welfare in order that others can be better off. What I'm wondering is whether a similar criticism can be made of Rawls' own theory. Think about it. Rawls wants people in real life to accept his difference principle, which requires that they be willing to give up the advantages they might gain from certain transactions because the worst off would not gain from the same transactions. What kind of a strain does THAT put on our rather limited human capacity for altruism?

And he goes further. Rawls explicitly claims that our individual capacities are common assets. How many people are willing to accept that view of themselves?

It seems to me that in this situation, the more intelligent, creative, and productive people have excellent grounds for complaint.

My point is that Rawls believes that he has proposed a workable system, but he may not have done so at all.