The Principles Of Justice In John Sandel's Theory Of Distributive Justice

Sandel’s thinks that the question of distributive justice is where the principles of justice are derived from. He states that Rawls believed that these principles are best derived from a hypothetical contract and that said contract should be carried out behind the veil of ignorance. Rawls then argued that those who are self-interested behind this veil would choose these two principles of justice to structure society: the principle of fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. The first principle explains that all jobs and positions should be open to every and any individual regardless of their wealth, level of education, etc while the second regulates inequalities, only permitting those that benefit the worst off. Rawls argued

Mikes establishes a basis argument on how effort and people with better abilities incentivise those beneath to work harder. But Rawls argues that “even the effort that some people expend, conscious driving, the work ethic, depends on fortunate family circumstances [and the such] from which we can claim not.” I believe that wage differentials (as long as they benefit the worse-off) would be accepted in Rawls’ view based on his previously stated argument as well as his difference

There’s a distinction, though, between moral desert and “entitlements to legitimate expectations” that can be described as a game of chance and a game of skill. The example Sandel used is the “Massachusetts State Lottery.” Let’s say you win the lottery, but “even though [you are] entitled to [your] winnings [... there] is no sense in which [you] morally deserve to win in the first place.” That’s entitlement. He used the example of the Red Sox winning the World Series. “When they win they’re entitled to the trophy, but it can be always asked of the game of skill: did they deserve to win?” It’s important to distinguish what “someone’s entitled to under rules and whether they deserve to win in the first