Rawls’ Difference Principle is forceful in the sagacity that it is a preference to utilitarianism and pure liberalism. Unlike utilitarianism which only seeks to capitalize on general welfare, DP focuses on distributive fairness, making sure that it is not the case that simply one fortunate group is constantly benefiting from the augment of total welfare. Conversely, in spite of the prominence placed on equality, Rawls’ does not describe strict liberalism because he chooses to regard the welfare of those who are worse off due to brute luck. Rawls discards a society that is a competition designed to pick out and recompense the naturally gifted.
Some challengers have disagreed that in the original position, individuals may not choose the DP as a means to justice. On the other hand, Rawls believe people will do so as people under the original position are supposed to be self-interested and therefore desire the maximum amount of primary goods. From behind the veil of ignorance, only the liberty and difference principles will ensure that they get the maximum benefits. From this angle, the DP sounds plausible and realistic.
Though compelling, Rawls arguments still fail to convince in certain aspects. Looking at the DP in terms of definitions, Rawls’ sees the ‘least advantaged’ as a representative member of class, e.g., unskilled workers, or those with an average income below the median etc. However, other measures of welfare are neglected, e.g., power, etc. Some may have more power than others, even if they are worse off materially. At the same time, he tacitly assumes that the same group of people will be the ‘least advantaged’ in different societies. If all are to have their personal conceptions of ‘the good’, the least advantaged, presumably the class with the least of ‘the good’, will also differ from individual to individual.