Sidney Crosby The Difference Principle
The difference principle is a very fair and effective way to ensure justice in society. However, in some cases and when taken to certain extremes, it does not hold up as a principle of justice. This essay will first define important terms like difference principle, original position and veil of ignorance. The example of Sidney Crosby will be examined to see how the difference principle holds up against some reasonable and logical arguments. Then the difference principle will be exposed to some hypothetical arguments and critiques.
The difference principle is the assertion that inequality can only be tolerated if the worst off person in society benefits from that inequality. This is referring to inequality of wealth or goods that develops …show more content…
in all societies. There are a couple of justifications for this claim. The first of which involves what Rawls calls original position and the veil of ignorance. The original position is the hypothetical position that all people in the society are born into. There is no inequality of anything at the original position. Ones parents aren’t determined, ones place of birth is not known, and ones race, intelligence and natural physical ability are all undetermined. In this original position, one sits behind the veil of ignorance that, when lifted, will show what person one actually is. Behind the veil of ignorance, absolutely nothing is known about oneself. Even attributes like how dedicated a person is, how easy-going and how ethical are all a mystery when in the original position.
The difference principle depends upon the understanding and acceptance that people are equally entitled to everything a society has to offer. Rawls’ argument is that it is completely unfair for one person to prosper while another lies in poverty simply because the former was born to rich parents and the latter was born with a mental disability. The two individuals had absolutely no say over what situation they would be born into so why is it fair that their positions are so different simply because of chance. If it is accepted that all people in a society have equal claim to the goods and wealth in that society regardless of the position that they are born into, then it makes sense that we would want to minimize the suffering of those who are worst off. If everyone deserves an equal share in the bounty of a society then those who are worst off are clearly not yet in possession of their equal share.
Sidney Crosby might not agree with the difference principle.
He could make the case that he worked tirelessly for years to become as good as he is at hockey. He could tell us about nights when others went out to have fun and he went and practiced. He could explain that while others were sleeping in he was going for jogs. He could even argue that his mental knowledge of the game is a result of hours of watching hockey and reading hockey books. According to Rawls though, all of these arguments are not valid. Rawls would say that Sidney Crosby was simply born into a lucky situation that resulted in him making millions of undeserved dollars more than everyone else in society. Rawls could say that if Sidney had been raised by parents who taught him to be lazy rather than work hard he would not be the superstar he is today. If his parents had been too poor to afford to sign him up for hockey as a child and too poor to pay for a stick to practice with, then how would he have been able to become the Sidney he is today. This is of course a valid argument. Everything had to go exactly right in order for Sidney to become the superstar hockey player he became. If he had broken his leg in a random car accident when he was five years old that then prevented him from playing hockey for a year and made him take up piano, maybe he would be an average professional pianist right now instead of an exceptional professional hockey
player.
But this argument can get even more interesting. Sid could make the claim that he has a twin brother who has the exact same genes as he does. This twin brother could have grown up in the exact same environment with the same opportunities but because of a slightly weaker work ethic, the brother is not a superstar. Again, it is hard to argue with this kind of claim because it is clear that Sidney Crosby worked exceptionally hard to get where he is and even a twin brother was not able to keep up with him. But then Rawls would ask a simple question: why do you have a stronger work ethic than your brother? The answer is that he was lucky enough to be born with that strong work ethic while his twin was not. So not only was Sidney Crosby lucky enough to be born into a wealthy enough family to put him into hockey, and lucky enough to avoid the car accident that would have prevented his success; he was also lucky enough to be born with an extremely strong work ethic and six foot four frame. It seems that Rawls would win this argument.
For now, let us accept Rawls’ argument that an individual is never really personally responsible for his success or failure. If this is the case, would we accept the difference principle? The answer to this question depends upon what the answer would be for someone in the original position. When in the original position, one wouldn’t know if they will be born as a Sidney Crosby or as a homeless person. The good thing about the effect of the difference principle is that Sidney Crosby is still allowed to be wealthy. The principle just stipulates that those who are worst off must also be made slightly more wealthy as a result. So if a person in the original position knows that their fate will either be becoming Sidney Crosby or becoming a homeless person, they would certainly consent to the idea that Sidney should give a small portion of his wealth to the homeless person. They would consent to this because they understand that if they are lucky enough to be born as Sidney Crosby they would not be severely negatively affected by the principle as they would still be very wealthy. But if they are unlucky enough to be born as the homeless person, the difference principle would be an enormous benefit for them.
If one really agrees with Rawls’ argument that any difference in a person’s success is just a result of luck then they would probably say “why doesn’t the state simply make us completely equal?” One could simply collect all the money that each person earns and distribute it equally among the entire society. This is some simplified idea of communism and would be in accordance with the difference principle. Since, according to Rawls, we should have an equal right to the wealth in society, this theory should make sense. But there are obvious problems with a model like this one. If no one is allowed to gain any wealth more than those around them then the desire to work and earn money is completely eliminated. Why would a person do any work at all if they will receive the exact same share of societies wealth by simply sitting at home. A society where there is no motivation at all for people to generate wealth would soon have every person in the society suffering. A problem with the difference principle is that it would have no problem with an entire society being in poverty as long as they are equal. The more realistic method to accommodate the difference principle is to allow people to generate their own personal wealth, but to ensure that at least some of this wealth is shared with those who are worse off. This can be done through taxation of income; especially of those who are most wealthy. There are other problems with Rawls’ theory. The most evident flaw is the assumption that he makes regarding human beings attitude toward risk. He assumes that people are risk averse. This is certainly not the case all the time for all people. In fact there are some situations where almost all people would take a risk. Let us pretend a hypothetical situation occurred where a coin may be flipped between two people, with one person recieving a large fortune while the other person would have to get punched in the stomach. Or the two can choose not to flip the coin and both would be completely unaffected. The worst off person is made worse off by choosing to flip the coin so according to Rawls, the two people would choose not to flip the coin. This is obviously not what the real result would be. It is safe to say that almost every person on the planet would gladly choose to take that risk and flip the coin because the reward is so much larger than the risk. This kind of example can also be applied to a larger scale. If there are two options, one that sees everyone in a society being somewhat unhappy, and a second option that sees everyone in society being extremely happy except for one person who is miserable; according to the difference principle, the first option is preferred. This again is an indication that the difference principle is not logical in every single case. Overall, the theory Rawls puts fourth regarding the role people play in their own success is mostly convincing. It has the risk of making people extremely depressed and destroying every person’s ego because he basically is stating that nothing you do or achieve is your own personal doing or achievement. This is a dangerous claim and would come into an abundance of disagreement. But as seen by the hypothetical argument with Sidney Crosby, Rawls’ theory seems to hold up. The part of his theory that does not seem logical is the difference principle in all cases. The idea that inequality can only be tolerated if those who are worst off also benefit is a good one but it assumes that people are risk averse. This is not always the case and certain situations would have the difference principle seeming quite foolish. However, for the most part, it is a very effective way to ensure that society continues to thrive while also guaranteeing that the less fortunate are compensated for their bad luck.
The difference principle is the assertion that inequality can only be tolerated if the worst off person in society benefits from that inequality. This is referring to inequality of wealth or goods that develops …show more content…
in all societies. There are a couple of justifications for this claim. The first of which involves what Rawls calls original position and the veil of ignorance. The original position is the hypothetical position that all people in the society are born into. There is no inequality of anything at the original position. Ones parents aren’t determined, ones place of birth is not known, and ones race, intelligence and natural physical ability are all undetermined. In this original position, one sits behind the veil of ignorance that, when lifted, will show what person one actually is. Behind the veil of ignorance, absolutely nothing is known about oneself. Even attributes like how dedicated a person is, how easy-going and how ethical are all a mystery when in the original position.
The difference principle depends upon the understanding and acceptance that people are equally entitled to everything a society has to offer. Rawls’ argument is that it is completely unfair for one person to prosper while another lies in poverty simply because the former was born to rich parents and the latter was born with a mental disability. The two individuals had absolutely no say over what situation they would be born into so why is it fair that their positions are so different simply because of chance. If it is accepted that all people in a society have equal claim to the goods and wealth in that society regardless of the position that they are born into, then it makes sense that we would want to minimize the suffering of those who are worst off. If everyone deserves an equal share in the bounty of a society then those who are worst off are clearly not yet in possession of their equal share.
Sidney Crosby might not agree with the difference principle.
He could make the case that he worked tirelessly for years to become as good as he is at hockey. He could tell us about nights when others went out to have fun and he went and practiced. He could explain that while others were sleeping in he was going for jogs. He could even argue that his mental knowledge of the game is a result of hours of watching hockey and reading hockey books. According to Rawls though, all of these arguments are not valid. Rawls would say that Sidney Crosby was simply born into a lucky situation that resulted in him making millions of undeserved dollars more than everyone else in society. Rawls could say that if Sidney had been raised by parents who taught him to be lazy rather than work hard he would not be the superstar he is today. If his parents had been too poor to afford to sign him up for hockey as a child and too poor to pay for a stick to practice with, then how would he have been able to become the Sidney he is today. This is of course a valid argument. Everything had to go exactly right in order for Sidney to become the superstar hockey player he became. If he had broken his leg in a random car accident when he was five years old that then prevented him from playing hockey for a year and made him take up piano, maybe he would be an average professional pianist right now instead of an exceptional professional hockey
player.
But this argument can get even more interesting. Sid could make the claim that he has a twin brother who has the exact same genes as he does. This twin brother could have grown up in the exact same environment with the same opportunities but because of a slightly weaker work ethic, the brother is not a superstar. Again, it is hard to argue with this kind of claim because it is clear that Sidney Crosby worked exceptionally hard to get where he is and even a twin brother was not able to keep up with him. But then Rawls would ask a simple question: why do you have a stronger work ethic than your brother? The answer is that he was lucky enough to be born with that strong work ethic while his twin was not. So not only was Sidney Crosby lucky enough to be born into a wealthy enough family to put him into hockey, and lucky enough to avoid the car accident that would have prevented his success; he was also lucky enough to be born with an extremely strong work ethic and six foot four frame. It seems that Rawls would win this argument.
For now, let us accept Rawls’ argument that an individual is never really personally responsible for his success or failure. If this is the case, would we accept the difference principle? The answer to this question depends upon what the answer would be for someone in the original position. When in the original position, one wouldn’t know if they will be born as a Sidney Crosby or as a homeless person. The good thing about the effect of the difference principle is that Sidney Crosby is still allowed to be wealthy. The principle just stipulates that those who are worst off must also be made slightly more wealthy as a result. So if a person in the original position knows that their fate will either be becoming Sidney Crosby or becoming a homeless person, they would certainly consent to the idea that Sidney should give a small portion of his wealth to the homeless person. They would consent to this because they understand that if they are lucky enough to be born as Sidney Crosby they would not be severely negatively affected by the principle as they would still be very wealthy. But if they are unlucky enough to be born as the homeless person, the difference principle would be an enormous benefit for them.
If one really agrees with Rawls’ argument that any difference in a person’s success is just a result of luck then they would probably say “why doesn’t the state simply make us completely equal?” One could simply collect all the money that each person earns and distribute it equally among the entire society. This is some simplified idea of communism and would be in accordance with the difference principle. Since, according to Rawls, we should have an equal right to the wealth in society, this theory should make sense. But there are obvious problems with a model like this one. If no one is allowed to gain any wealth more than those around them then the desire to work and earn money is completely eliminated. Why would a person do any work at all if they will receive the exact same share of societies wealth by simply sitting at home. A society where there is no motivation at all for people to generate wealth would soon have every person in the society suffering. A problem with the difference principle is that it would have no problem with an entire society being in poverty as long as they are equal. The more realistic method to accommodate the difference principle is to allow people to generate their own personal wealth, but to ensure that at least some of this wealth is shared with those who are worse off. This can be done through taxation of income; especially of those who are most wealthy. There are other problems with Rawls’ theory. The most evident flaw is the assumption that he makes regarding human beings attitude toward risk. He assumes that people are risk averse. This is certainly not the case all the time for all people. In fact there are some situations where almost all people would take a risk. Let us pretend a hypothetical situation occurred where a coin may be flipped between two people, with one person recieving a large fortune while the other person would have to get punched in the stomach. Or the two can choose not to flip the coin and both would be completely unaffected. The worst off person is made worse off by choosing to flip the coin so according to Rawls, the two people would choose not to flip the coin. This is obviously not what the real result would be. It is safe to say that almost every person on the planet would gladly choose to take that risk and flip the coin because the reward is so much larger than the risk. This kind of example can also be applied to a larger scale. If there are two options, one that sees everyone in a society being somewhat unhappy, and a second option that sees everyone in society being extremely happy except for one person who is miserable; according to the difference principle, the first option is preferred. This again is an indication that the difference principle is not logical in every single case. Overall, the theory Rawls puts fourth regarding the role people play in their own success is mostly convincing. It has the risk of making people extremely depressed and destroying every person’s ego because he basically is stating that nothing you do or achieve is your own personal doing or achievement. This is a dangerous claim and would come into an abundance of disagreement. But as seen by the hypothetical argument with Sidney Crosby, Rawls’ theory seems to hold up. The part of his theory that does not seem logical is the difference principle in all cases. The idea that inequality can only be tolerated if those who are worst off also benefit is a good one but it assumes that people are risk averse. This is not always the case and certain situations would have the difference principle seeming quite foolish. However, for the most part, it is a very effective way to ensure that society continues to thrive while also guaranteeing that the less fortunate are compensated for their bad luck.