Seems somewhat unfair to Rawls, who identifies “excusable envy” in response to great inequality, which can justify reconsideration of the difference principle (see TJ, 468).
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
It also seems to misunderstand Rawls’ argument. The hypothetical contractors in the original position aren’t assumed to be non-envious because envy is taken to be avoided & feared. They’re non-envious because that makes them more likely to arrive at fair principles.
“Therefore the question is whether a basic structure which satisfies the principles of justice is likely to arouse so much excusable envy that the choice of these principles should be reconsidered.”
Comments