Anna Jensen

Period 2/3
11/30/14
Egalitarianism Argument Essay

Imagine making $90 Million a year. That would be pretty awesome, right? Now imagine
making $15,080 a year. Not so great, right? That first figure is what Michael Jordan makes; the
second is what the average person earning the minimum wage in the U.S. makes. It is for this
reason that John Rawls says we should tax people like Jordan. Egalitarianism gives some support
for this claim, such as: 1) the talented keep their jobs, 2) income inequalities for the sake of
incentives, and 3) people dont necessarily deserve certain rewards.

With an egalitarian society people with certain talents such as doctors and Michael Jordan
will be able to have the same jobs they would have normally without any handicaps. Rawlss
theory of justice, what he calls the difference principle (Sandel 156), corrects for the unequal
distribution of talents and endowments without handicapping the talented (Sandel 156). Many
people would ask How?; well Michael Sandel gives us a good description in his book
Justice: Encourage the gifted to develop and exercise their talents, but with the understanding
that the rewards these talents reap in the market belong to the community as a whole. (156). In
other words, the talented will keep their jobs, with the understanding they will be taxed for the
benefit of the less fortunate.

An argument could be made that talented people would not have the incentive to use their
talents if the rewards are for the community and go to helping others. Rawlss reply is that the

difference principle permits income inequalities for the sake of incentives, provided incentives
are needed to improve the lot of the least advantaged (Sandel 157-158). The talented will still
have their income differences but there will still be a somewhat heavy tax on them for the
community and the sake of less fortunate members of society. Rawls also states It is important
to notice that allowing wage differences for the sake of incentives is different from saying that
the successful have a privileged moral claim to the fruits of their labor (Sandel 158).

Distributive justice is not about rewarding virtue or moral desert. Instead, its about
meeting legitimate expectations that arise once the rules are in place (Sandel 161). Rawlss
theory of justice does not reward moral desert it is more a matter of people earning the benefits
they are entitled to under the rules in place. If the tax system requires them to hand over some
portion or their income to help the disadvantaged, they cant complain that this deprives them of
something they morally deserve (Sandel 161.) If people arent earning something morally, a
concept that Rawls does not believe is real, then they cannot stop the government from taxing
them for the benefit of the less fortunate.

Taxing Jordan is perfectly fine with the Egalitarian society. He would have incentives to
keep playing and practicing and he would be given the resources to keep being a basketball
player. The only exception being he would be taxed for the benefit of the less fortunate people of
society.