Abstract

According to the difference principle, social and economic inequalities are justified only when they maximize the benefits of the least advantaged. John Rawls attempted to justify this principle using the thought experiment known as the veil of ignorance. The idea is that it would be rational for all people to agree to the principle if they did not know what position they would occupy in society. John Harsanyi objected to this argument on the grounds that the difference principle is rational only for people with low-risk propensity. For those willing to risk their position, the utilitarian expected-utility maximization principle is no less rational. Thus, Rawls’s veil of ignorance discriminates against people based on their risk propensity. Many Rawlsians respond to this objection by arguing that there is no discrimination because people leave their risk propensity behind the veil of ignorance. This article defends Harsanyi’s objection against this response. People cannot leave their risk propensity behind a veil because they need it to choose principles of justice based on their impact on their own life prospects. However, the article offers a different response to Harsanyi’s objection. His objection fails because it ignores the fact that principles of justice must not only be rational but also reasonable. The expected-utility maximization principle is rational but not reasonable because it imposes risks on other people, which is not the case with the difference principle. However, to use this response to Harsanyi’s objection, Rawlsians must abandon the neutralist liberalism of later Rawls and elaborate the Kantian foundations of his early philosophical project.