Colorado Springs's Argument Summary

Rawls analogy of Colorado Springs would first argue the point that the article makes about those who could afford the light would pay for them themselves and others would do without the service. This according to Rawls would be unjust, because it would give the superiors power over the inferiors. Also when inequalities exist, it goes against his principle of social and economic equality. This specifically would prevent social justice which deals with a hypothetical consent that allows equal basic rights for all citizens, as well as the advantage citizens looking out for the good of the disadvantage citizens (Sandel 2010, p.142). According to this article, there was no contract, no agreement about the street lights which the city turned off

The city did away with the street light. The city suggested to contract out businesses. Chuck Fowler a prominent business owner of a lavishly 3,000 acre high end resort made a blueprint of how the city should be run. The citizens agreed with his concept. Rawls would see this concept as the advantage continuing on their ladder of success while sharing their success with the less disadvantage being in this case most citizens of Colorado Springs. Rawls feels that the difference principle “permits income inequalities as just only if incentives and effort of the people who are at an advantage ultimately help the people who are at a disadvantaged (Sandel 2010, p.158). Therefore applying this principle to the wealthy resort owner is in line with Rawls difference principle because it doesn’t matter what Chuck Fowler makes in wealth, what matters is according to Rawls, “the basic structure of society” (Sandel 2010, p.152). Chuck Fowler in his original position, benefits the citizens that are not as well off as him. Setting aside Chuck Fowler’s income, the difference principle exerts his rights and duties, income and wealth, power and opportunity and permits that inequality as long as it is allocated to the