G.A. Cohen criticized the difference principle in Rawlsian liberalism. Rawls argued that inequalities benefiting everyone (including the worst-off) are just—talented people deserve incentives to produce more for all. Cohen responded that if talented people genuinely embraced Rawlsian justice, they would work hard without extra incentives; demanding incentives reveals a failure of egalitarian commitment. Rawlsians reply that political theory must work with human nature as it is, not as it ideally should be.
The passage suggests that
political theories may face tensions between ideal principles and assumptions about motivation
Cohen fully endorsed Rawls's difference principle
talented people never produce anything of value
Rawlsians believe human nature is infinitely malleable
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the best answer. The debate is about ideal commitment vs. realistic motivation.
- Context clues: Cohen says genuine commitment wouldn't require incentives; Rawlsians say theory must work with human nature "as it is."
- Meaning: There's tension between ideal principles and motivational assumptions.
- Verify: Cohen's idealistic demand vs. Rawlsian realism about motivation captures this tension.
💡 Strategy: When debates hinge on idealistic vs. realistic assumptions, infer the ideal-reality tension.
Choice B is incorrect because Cohen "criticized" the difference principle. Choice C is incorrect because incentives motivate production "for all." Choice D is incorrect because Rawlsians accept human nature "as it is," not infinitely malleable.