SEEU Review vol. 5 Nr. 2 (pdf) - South East European University

SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009
thinkable worse alternative”. The limit of inequality should not be conflict
with basic liberties (Treanor, 2003).
One of the problems of the theory of justice is whether it is realist or
utopist. Actually, Treanor sees that Rawls “is not designing a future just
society: he is arguing that present societies are broadly just”. The general
leftward criticism is generally this saying that Rawls covertly tries to
legitimizes existing liberal democratic society. Treanor states that Rawls
uses “the so-called 'trickle-down effect'. In its crudest form, this is the claim
that the rich must get richer, in order that more of their wealth can 'trickle
down' to the poor. It became a standard of neoliberal politics”. Actually we
are persuaded to “the 'thinkable worst alternative'”. As for the position of
“the least favoured” or worst-offs, Treanor states “Rawls does not say that
the least favoured should have a large advantage, or an equal advantage, or
an advantage chosen by themselves. Simply an 'advantage', compared to a
worse alternative”. What Rawls does is to “delete” the claims of real world,
“claims of equality, claims to minimum standards, claims of some hope of
social improvement”. The dangerous think is that “Rawls allows any
oppressor to perpetuate any injustice on the weak, if they can think of a
variant of the trickle-down effect” (Treanor, 2003)
Treanor also poınts to “typical structural injustice in liberal-democratic
societies”, which is “class inequality in death rates and life expectancy”. For
example, according to Briitish study he concludes that: “Annually, some
7,500 deaths amongst people younger than 65 could be prevented if
inequalities in wealth narrowed to their 1983 levels” (Treanor, 2003).
If “the disadvantaged groups demand justice”? “They could approach the
government, and demand redistribution of wealth. A Rawlsian government
advisor would however reject their claim, using Rawls' work”. I think that
Rawls is aware of the problem. His social minimum criteria offer some
primary goods according to the difference principle. However, a degree of
minimum is not existed in his theory. “In a Rawlsian system, the
complainants in this case can never establish that there is a clear injustice.
Since no injustice is established, any forced redistribution of wealth would
itself be unjust. (It would violate property rights, one of the traditional basic
liberties of liberalism)”. Thus, Treanor is right to say that “Therefore the
Rawlsian advisor would reject the demand for redistribution” (Treanor,
2003).
29