I have a question about Rawls' theory of justice.
Part of his difference principle stipulates that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all." I understand part (b), but part (a) I have some problems with. If I'm interpreting this right, there's a "safety net" so that the least-advantaged members of society don't go below. Thus, it takes care of the poor people, but what do the rich get out of it? After all, part (a) says that it's to everyone's advantage. But what advantage do the rich have by giving up something so that the least-advantaged members benefit?
Read another response by Thomas Pogge
Read another response about Justice, Philosophers