Two Paths to Equality: Differences Between Rawls and Cohen on Equality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66581/gmpy4v62Keywords:
difference principle, interpersonal test, radical luck egalitarianism, justificatory communityAbstract
In contemporary egalitarian theory, the debate between John Rawls and G. A. Cohen over justice and equality is especially representative. Rawls, beginning with a critique of utilitarianism, constructs the two principles of justice through the device of the veil of ignorance and establishes a liberal egalitarian path grounded in the basic structure of society. Cohen, from the standpoint of analytical Marxism, develops an internal critique of Rawls by challenging the scope of justice and the incentive argument. On that basis, Cohen, as a radical luck egalitarian, advances a theory centered on equal access to advantage, socialist equality of opportunity, and the community principle. He insists that justice must extend to personal choice and egalitarian ethos, and that theory should not compromise with self-interested motivation. Their divergence ultimately stems from different assumptions about human motivation and different theoretical commitments. They therefore represent two distinct paths to equality—one based on institutional accommodation and the other on moral purity. The comparison not only reveals the internal tension of contemporary theories of justice, but also offers important insights into the coordinated role of institutions and social ethos in the pursuit of equality.
References
Abbey, R. (2016). Susan Okin’s Justice, Gender, and the Family: Twenty-five years later. Hypatia, 31(3), 636–637.
Anderson, E. (2010). The fundamental disagreement between luck egalitarians and relational egalitarians. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 40(sup1), 1–23.
Chen, J. (2023). On community in Cohen’s political philosophy. Shandong Social Sciences, (8), 44–50.
Chen, J., & Wang, Y. (2025). On Cohen’s dual critique of the incentive argument . Journal of Hubei University (Philosophy and Social Science), 52(5), 1–9.
Chen, Y. (2024). Cohen’s critique of Rawls’s theory of justice and the conception of socialist justice. Nankai Journal (Philosophy, Literature and Social Science Edition), (6), 34–42.
Cohen, G. A. (2009). If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re so rich? Peking University Press.
Cohen, G. A. (2011). On the currency of egalitarian justice, and other essays in political philosophy. Princeton University Press.
Cohen, G. A. (2011a). Why not socialism? (Z. Duan, Trans.). People’s Publishing House.
Cohen, G. A. (2014). Rescuing justice and equality (W. Chen, Trans.). Fudan University Press.
Duan, Z. (2010). Does the difference principle apply only to the “basic structure” of society? Cohen’s questioning of Rawls’s theory of justice. Philosophical Research, (7), 106–112.
Duan, Z. (2021). On Cohen’s thesis of equality of access to advantage. Philosophical Research, (5), 102–108.
Duan, Z. (2022). On G. A. Cohen’s critique of Rawls’s difference principle revisited . Jianghai Academic Journal, (3), 27–33.
Duan, Z. (2024). Is distributive equality a basic value pursued by classical utilitarianism?. Chinese Social Sciences Evaluation, (4), 147–154.
Guan, X., & Jiao, P. (2025). Analytical Marxists’ critique of Rawls’s view of justice . Theoretical Horizon, (1), 94–100.
Li, S. (2025). On Rawls’s justification of the two principles of justice. Journal of Harbin Normal University (Social Sciences), 16(4), 14–18.
Machin, D. (2013). Rawls’s difference principle as compensation for social immobility. Political Quarterly, 84(4), 506–514.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2009). Marx and Engels collected works (Vol. 9) . People’s Publishing House.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev. ed.). Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (2009). A theory of justice (H. He, B. He, & S. Liao, Trans.). China Social Sciences Press.
Tang, P. (2024). The priority of fair equality of opportunity: A defense of Rawls. Contemporary Chinese Values Research, 10(5), 102–113.
Wang, L. (2021). Equality or desert? A new inquiry into Rawls’s principle of fair equality of opportunity. Philosophical Research, (1), 89–98.
Yi, H., & Zhang, X. (2016). Freedom, happiness, and education: Three elements of Mill’s utilitarianism. Journal of Hunan Normal University (Social Sciences), 45(5), 18–23.
Yi, J. (2021). Cohen’s socialist view of equality and its contemporary implications. Scientific Socialism, (6), 139–145.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jin Chen (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1.Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). This allows others to share the work (copy and redistribute) and adapt the work (remix, transform, and build upon) for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited.
2.Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3.Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
