1. (Liberty Principle) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.
2. (Difference Principle) 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...
First lets look at how he comes to this conclusion. Rawls posits this idea he calls the "veil of ignorance". Behind this veil of ignorance, man (the term "man" refers to both male and female) is completely ignorant of his social, racial, and gender status, and he is unaware of his abilities, education, and opportunity. Thus a man would know if he was rich or poor, black or white, male or female, book smart, street smart, or mentally handicapped. Rawls calls this the "original position. And from the original position, behind the veil of ignorance, all men, being reasonable, would want equality and would be able to see what is just and fair. And they would all reason to Rawls' two principles of justice.
The first principle is very egalitarian and aligns with social contract theory posed by Locke and Hobbes. Like a Natural Law argument, you give every member of society as much liberty as possible such that it doesn't infringe on the liberties of others.
The second principle is more controversial, and mainly because part (a) is not egalitarian. Rawls says that because there are inevitable inequalities in society, they should be arranged as to be to everyone's advantage. An example he gives is "to the distribution of income and wealth and to the design of organizations that make use of differences in authority and responsibility. While the distribution of wealth and income need not be equal, it must be to everyone's advantage..." In American society this is played out in the higher tax rates for parties in higher income brackets.
One reason this is such a problem is that people will lose incentive to earn more if they know it will be taken from them. Rawls' theory hints to very socialistic ideals.
My problem with Rawls' theory starts behind the veil of ignorance. First, can we ever get there? Can we every reason from the "original position"? Thomas Kuhn argues that we can't ever get beyond our own paradigm. But suppose, like Edmund Husserl, we could bracket out all experience, historical circumstance, and personal situation, would all men reason to the same idea of what is "fair"? This point seems less likely. If you look at the history of philosophy, men have been reasoning differently from the beginning of time. If men didn't reason differently, this issue wouldn't be controversial. Just because Rawls names his original position as being behind the veil of ignorance, that does not mean that all men will reason the same. Also, if you talk to some, you'll come to conclude that some men don't reason at all.
If you ask me, Rawls' theory of justice originating from behind the veil of ignorance originates from Rawls' trail of ignorance on the condition of humanity.
