I'm having trouble with John Rawls' second principle, help?

Question

Can anyone clarify how it creates quality and a just distribution?

Answer 1

Rawls's theory of justice revolves around the adaptation of two fundamental principles of justice which would, in turn, guarantee a just and morally acceptable society. The first principle guarantees the right of each person to have the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the liberty of others. The second principle states that social and economic positions are to be (a) to everyone's advantage and (b) open to all.
A key problem for Rawls is to show how such principles would be universally adopted, and here the work borders on general ethical issues. He introduces a theoretical "veil of ignorance" in which all the "players" in the social game would be placed in a situation which is called the "original position." Having only a general knowledge about the facts of "life and society," each player is to make a "rationally prudential choice" concerning the kind of social institution they would enter into contract with. By denying the players any specific information about themselves it forces them to adopt a generalized point of view that bears a strong resemblance to the moral point of view. "Moral conclusions can be reached without abandoning the prudential standpoint and positing a moral outlook merely by pursuing one's own prudential reasoning under certain procedural bargaining and knowledge constraints."

Answer 2

Principle 2, In a theory of Justice reads:

"Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity"

Part a is known as the “difference principle”: it requires that any unequal distribution of wealth and income be such that those who are worst off are better off than they would be under any other distribution, including an equal distribution.

Part b says that that society must provide all citizens with the basic means necessary to participate in such competition, including appropriate education and health care.

The concept is that so long as there is an equal chance for everyone to have a better situation, that there is an expectation that some will be better off than others. Basically, so long as the wealthy are not becoming so at the expense of the worst off, but instead are providing better health care, better technologies, and a better standard of living that if the distribution of wealth were different, then it is a favorable situation. It is possible that everyone has an equal wealth, and their situation is worse off than if the distribution were inequitably balanced (see Communism). The idea is that it is OK for the rich to get richer, so long as the poor are in a better situation, and have the opportunity and freedom to become rich in their own right.