Skip to main content
Published Online:pp 167-183

“Beyond an ungreen-economics-based political philosophy”

John Rawls’s liberalism is the dominant political philosophy of our time. But is it compatible with the values of green economics? I argue in this paper that it is founded on ungreen economics.

In particular, Rawls’s ‘difference principle’, which takes inequalities to be just if they benefit the worst off, is subjected here to three counter-arguments.

Firstly, an argument based on one from Norman Daniels.

Secondly, an argument based on one from Jerry Cohen.

Thirdly, and most originally: inegalitarian modes of ‘societal’ organisation are ecologically unsustainable. The difference principle unconsciously assumes that the Earth is infinite, that the more we raise the lowest boats the better; disregarding that we may already have raised the lowest boats – in Western societies at least – let alone, obviously, the higher boats, more than the ecosphere can tolerate. (And: in a steady-state, inequalities would be more socially unsustainable than ever.)

Three strikes: the difference principle is out…


Rawls, Jerry Cohen, Norman Daniels, difference principle, liberalism, ecological


  • 1. Brazier, D. (2001). The New Buddhism. London:Constable Google Scholar
  • 2. Chomsky, N. , Herman, E. (1988). Manufacturing Consent. New York:Pantheon Google Scholar
  • 3. Cohen, J. (2001). If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re so Rich?. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Google Scholar
  • 4. Daniels, N. , Daniels (1989). ‘Equal liberty and unequal worth of liberty’. Reading Rawls. Stanford:Stanford U. Press Google Scholar
  • 5. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive Justice. New Haven:Yale UP Google Scholar
  • 6. Jones, K. (2003). The New Social Face of Buddhism. Somerville, MA:Wisdom Google Scholar
  • 7. Kennet, M. (2011). The Green Economics Reader. Oxford:The Green Economics Institute Google Scholar
  • 8. Leonard, L. Barry, J. (2009). The Transition to Sustainable Living and Practice. Dublin:Emerald Books Google Scholar
  • 9. Meyer, A. (2001). Contraction and Convergence. London:Green Books Google Scholar
  • 10. Norman, R. , Mason, Andrew (1998). ‘The social basis of equality’. Ideas of Equality. Oxford:Blackwell Google Scholar
  • 11. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York:Basic Google Scholar
  • 12. Paden, R. (1997). ‘Rawls’s just savings principle and the sense of justice’. Social Theory and Practice. 23, 1, 27-51 Google Scholar
  • 13. Peffer, R. (1994). ‘Towards a more adequate Rawlsian theory of social justice’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 75, 3 and 4, 251-272 Google Scholar
  • 14. Rawls, J. (1972). A Theory of Justice. Oxford:OUP , (referred to in the text above as theory; references are to the original edition, unless stated otherwise) Google Scholar
  • 15. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Google Scholar
  • 16. Read, R. , Leonard, Liam Barry, John (2009). ‘A green philosophy of money’. Google Scholar
  • 17. Sandel, M. (1982). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge:CUP Google Scholar
  • 18. Woodin, M. , Lucas, C. (2004). Green Alternatives to Globalisation. London:Pluto Google Scholar
  • 19. Wright, R.G. (1977). ‘The high cost of Rawls inegalitarianism’. Political Research Quarterly. 30, 1, 73-79 Google Scholar

Additional References