III. Inequality and the Principles of Justice as Fairness

For the distribution of wealth and income to be fair and just, it must comply with principles of justice as fairness. When average workers are barely able to afford basic food, shelter, and healthcare, and the CEO of the same corporation enjoys a salary almost 300 times that of the average worker, or something similarly large, it is a manifest inequality that infringes the first principle of fairness as justice because a lack of basic necessities for workers in the face of such excesses for the CEO is an injury to the workers' basic liberties. Under the first principle of justice as fairness, each person is to enjoy basic liberties such that the person has a sense of self-respect as a free member of society. A worker without basic subsistence necessities such as food, shelter, education, and healthcare, especially when their leader is given so much more, cannot be described as having enjoyed basic liberties because the worker is deprived of a sense of self-respect by the circumstances. Rawls enumerates the basic liberties to include: political liberty (the right to vote and to hold public office) and freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person, which includes freedom from psychological oppression and physical assault and dismemberment (integrity of the person); the right to hold personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law. ⁸ Because basic subsistence such as sufficient food, adequate shelter, basic healthcare, and education are as important as basic liberties such as political freedom or freedom of the person in a person's survival as an individual with dignity, basic subsistence should be included among basic liberties.

As stated, if workers are not provided with basic necessities while CEOs enjoy extraordinary excesses, it is a manifest case of inequality that infringes on basic liberties. In such a situation, institutions and government must step in to ensure that the first principle is complied with by requiring that (1) employees are given sufficient compensation that would at least provide for their basic needs for survival, including food, shelter, education, and healthcare, and (2) when an individual somehow cannot obtain sufficient earning to provide for their basic needs, institutions and government are required to step in to make up the difference. Thus, providing for the basic needs is necessary for compliance with the first principle because an individual would be in such a needy and miserable state without meeting basic needs that it would be impossible for the individual to claim basic liberties such as political liberty, freedom of speech, and assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought. Therefore, the first principle is infringed when a corporation pays its full-time workers less than what can provide the basic necessities for the workers while keeping large surpluses. Rawls discusses the concept of social minimum in distribution. Social minimum should address basic economic needs. Government and institutions must step in to correct the infringement of the first principle by compelling corporations to provide sufficient wages. In practice, this is to set a mandated minimum wage. The mandated minimum wage should be automatically or frequently adjusted to compensate for inflation and living standards. Further, under the first principle, when individuals cannot find employment at all or cannot find sufficient employment that will pay sufficient wage to maintain the necessities, government and institutions must step in to make up the difference so that basic needs are provided to these individuals. In practice, this is unemployment or underemployment benefits paid to individuals. The unemployment or underemployment benefits should similarly frequently adjust for inflation and changes of living standards to comply with the first principle of justice as fairness. Thus, the first principle of justice as fairness guarantees basic necessities by requiring a minimum wage in addition to other basic liberties. ⁹

Under the second principle of justice as fairness, each person is to enjoy equal access to social and economic opportunities that are open to all. It is natural for individuals to acquire initial arbitrarily unequal qualities such as social circumstances, chance contingencies, and good fortune. The second principle aims to prevent economic and social inequality due to these unequal qualities by providing fair equality of opportunities. Under the second principle, persons with the same ability and the same willingness to use their ability should face the same prospects, regardless of their initial conditions. In practice, it is impossible to guarantee equal prospects to those with the same ability and the same willingness to use their ability. Chance contingency is a natural process of human life that exemplifies itself in conception. So long as chance contingency is equally applied to those with the same ability and the same willingness to use their ability, and not consistently skewed by certain other arbitrary factors unless it is to correct a past error, such contingency for distribution of social goods should be accepted as fair and consistent with justice. Given that distribution among persons of the same ability and the same willingness to use their ability is subject to chance contingency, the second principle dictates equal education opportunity to all to cultivate equal abilities among individuals. Complete social and economic mobility is a manifestation of compliance with the second principle. As society faces the increasingly urgent need to address wealth and income inequality, the second principle of justice as fairness directs our attention to social and economic mobility, in particular, fair access and equal education for those who are disadvantaged.

In providing fair access and equal education for all, most countries in modern societies have compulsory free education until secondary school. However, as technology develops and more advanced skills are required, a secondary school education no longer meets the needs of most jobs. As adults should be free to pursue what he construes as good, compulsory education may not be suitable at the college level. However, affordable or free education at the college level must be provided to ensure that the economically disadvantaged have full access to educational opportunities afforded to them by the second principle of justice as fairness. Alternatively, some colleges have need-based aid policies and need-blind admission policies to ensure that admission is based on ability and that everyone who is admitted can afford to attend. The second principle demands that such policies be widespread. Making loans available for those who need them for educational purposes is an inadequate measure to make fair education accessible. Even if one is not deterred by the potential burden of debt to pursue education, the debt from education can become a crushing burden upon graduation.

The third principle of justice as fairness requires that the least advantaged be given priority to benefit from social resources. The difference principle states that the long-run expectations of the least advantaged social group should be maximized. A distinction can be made between distribution made due to wage earning and distribution made due to social distribution by institution or government. The first principle addresses distribution due to wage earning to a degree where guaranteeing basic liberties requires that a minimum wage be provided. Providing a minimum wage aims to allow the least advantaged to secure basic necessities. If the basic necessities are not met by wages, government and institutions should step in to make up the difference.

As the difference principle requires that the long-run expectations of the least advantaged social group should be maximized, the third principle of justice as fairness embodies the difference principle to address the distribution of social resources beyond minimum wage. In the distribution of social resources, the least advantaged should benefit the most with the gradual decrease of distribution corresponding with a gradually improved state of conditions among persons in society. The reason for such an arrangement is straightforward, as resources would be directed where most needed. Examples of such prioritized distribution for the worst off include direct government payments during challenging times such as a pandemic. Such practices are commonly employed to level the playing field. For example, it is a long-established tradition in various American sports leagues that the worse the team's standing, the higher the priority in their picking new team members from the pool of available new players.

Prioritizing the least advantaged to receive the most benefits from social resources incorporates the rational ideas of redress, mutual benefits, and reciprocity. Using a large nationally representative sample, 59 percent of Americans will spend at least one year below the official poverty line between the ages of 20 and 75. That number rises to 76 percent if it includes people who are near the poverty line. Because everyone has at least 3 out of 4 possibilities of being near or below the poverty line, it is rational for everyone to support providing the minimum to the worst off to benefit oneself at the time of need. Complying with the third principle of justice as fairness to distribute to the least advantaged the most is also part of requirements and obligations under the social contract theory of fairness. Everyone agrees to be bound by fairness under the social contract. Fairness accounts for all requirements and obligations that are not natural duties and holds that a person must abide by the rules of an institution if the institution is just and the person has voluntarily accepted the benefits of the institution. When a number of persons engage in a mutually advantageous cooperative venture according to rules and thus restrict their liberty in ways necessary to yield advantages for all, those who have submitted to these restrictions have a right to a similar acquiescence on the part of those who have benefited from their submission. ¹⁰

Thus, infringement of the three principles of justice as fairness would increase and deepen inequality, while compliance with the principles would reduce inequality.