In our readings, Rawls and Mill do not take definitive positions about the justice of what we Michael Sandel referred to as “meritocracy.” but they offer suggestive remarks that could be taken to construct arguments either for or against such a meritocracy. On the one hand, Rawls offers his “difference principle.” On the other hand, Mill offers the “Principle of Utility” as a tool that can help us decide which principle of justice we should prefer when we find that we have conflicting principles. (see especially chapter 5, paragraph 30, where Mill speaks of remuneration in “cooperative industrial associations,” and use the knowledge you know of the relationship between the principle of utility and the conflicting principles of justice). Using these readings, answer the following questions: a. (a) what, according to Sandel, meritocracy is, and (b) what arguments there are for believing meritocracy is a just system. b. Notably, meritocracies permit inequalities. Would Rawls or Mill consider this inequality permissible, just, or unjust? For this question, use the readings of both Rawls and Mill, but construct one argument.
