G. A. Cohen's criticism of Rawls thought: ethos and incentives

Abstract

In this paper will investigate the criticisms presented by Gerald Allan Cohen of the difference principle asserted by the American philosopher John Rawls. Cohen claims that the difference principle allows for exorbitant inequalities and that these inequalities would undermine the ethos of solidarity assumed by Rawls. Against Cohen's criticisms, it will be emphasized the fact that the principles of justice as fairness must be read together (holistic reading), and therefore the inequalities allowed by the difference principle are much smaller than Cohen believed, since equal liberty, fair equality of opportunity, and the fair value of the equal political liberties must also be ensured. Thus, to ensure that the principles work together, it will be argued that the scope of the principle is much narrower than Cohen thought. It is emphasized that in Rawlsian thought there is no need for constant economic growth, and the principle of difference should not be seen as a market principle, on which its objective is not to be a mere principle of reparation, but a principle that affirms reciprocity between fellow citizens of a democratic society.