(Return to main path )

I agree with Fred. Rawls' principles are unworkable because the better endowed people have no reason to accept them and basically end up being sacrificed for the benefit of the less well endowed.

And not only is this situation unsustainable in the real world, but it should force us to reconsider an assumption that Rawls made; namely, that people do not deserve benefits that flow from differences in natural endowment or capability because they do not deserve those capabilities. Rawls' argument depends on that assumption. That's crucial.

Rawls believes that we do not deserve our superior capablities, and therefore they cannot be considered in choosing basic rules of justice. They should be placed behind the veil of ignorance in the Original Position.

But if we say instead that people  have a right to benefits derive from their basic capabilities even though they do not deserve those capabilities, then there is no reason to exclude knowledge of our capabilities from the parties in the original position. And if that knowledge is not excluded, there will be real negotiation in the Original Position. The better endowed will have no reason to accept Rawls' principles.