SUS1501 MEMO
ASSIGNMENT 04
.1. Analysis of the inequality using all three of John Rawls’ principles in the correct
order
When I think about the inequality between extreme wealth and severe poverty in
South Africa, especially in relation to Patrice Motsepe and the mining industry, I keep
coming back to the idea of “fair’s fair.” It feels like the central question Rawls is
asking us is not just who has what, but whether the system that produces these
outcomes is something we would still accept if we didn’t know where we would end
up in life.
In this case, Motsepe became extremely wealthy through mining, while many people
working in or around the same industry continue to live in poverty and difficult
conditions. I do not think it is fair to simply say he “caused” their poverty. But I do
think Rawls pushes me to ask something deeper: if I didn’t know whether I would be
rich or poor, would I agree to a system like this?
Rawls’ principles must be applied in order, so I will reflect on them step by step.
Principle 1: Greatest Equal Liberty
The first thing Rawls insists on is that everyone must have equal basic freedoms. This
is where I personally feel the strongest sense of “fair’s fair.” No amount of wealth
should ever come at the cost of people losing their basic dignity, voice, or safety.
When I think about mining in South Africa, I cannot ignore events like Marikana. The
killing of 34 striking miners in 2012 is a painful reminder that economic systems can
fail people at a very basic level. Even if I try to separate Motsepe personally from that
event, it still makes me question whether the system itself respects equal liberty.
From a Rawlsian point of view, I understand this as a clear warning: if people cannot
safely speak, protest, or organise, then the system is already unfair — no matter how
much wealth it produces. And for me, that is where “fair’s fair” begins.
Principle 2a: Equality of Fair Opportunity
The second principle makes me think about how unequal life chances really are in
South Africa. On paper, it might look like everyone has the same opportunity to
succeed. But in reality, I know that is not true.
A child born into a wealthy family has access to better schools, better support, and
better networks. A child born in a poor mining community often has to fight just to
access basic education and stability. So even if both children are “free” to become
anything, their starting points are completely different.
ASSIGNMENT 04
.1. Analysis of the inequality using all three of John Rawls’ principles in the correct
order
When I think about the inequality between extreme wealth and severe poverty in
South Africa, especially in relation to Patrice Motsepe and the mining industry, I keep
coming back to the idea of “fair’s fair.” It feels like the central question Rawls is
asking us is not just who has what, but whether the system that produces these
outcomes is something we would still accept if we didn’t know where we would end
up in life.
In this case, Motsepe became extremely wealthy through mining, while many people
working in or around the same industry continue to live in poverty and difficult
conditions. I do not think it is fair to simply say he “caused” their poverty. But I do
think Rawls pushes me to ask something deeper: if I didn’t know whether I would be
rich or poor, would I agree to a system like this?
Rawls’ principles must be applied in order, so I will reflect on them step by step.
Principle 1: Greatest Equal Liberty
The first thing Rawls insists on is that everyone must have equal basic freedoms. This
is where I personally feel the strongest sense of “fair’s fair.” No amount of wealth
should ever come at the cost of people losing their basic dignity, voice, or safety.
When I think about mining in South Africa, I cannot ignore events like Marikana. The
killing of 34 striking miners in 2012 is a painful reminder that economic systems can
fail people at a very basic level. Even if I try to separate Motsepe personally from that
event, it still makes me question whether the system itself respects equal liberty.
From a Rawlsian point of view, I understand this as a clear warning: if people cannot
safely speak, protest, or organise, then the system is already unfair — no matter how
much wealth it produces. And for me, that is where “fair’s fair” begins.
Principle 2a: Equality of Fair Opportunity
The second principle makes me think about how unequal life chances really are in
South Africa. On paper, it might look like everyone has the same opportunity to
succeed. But in reality, I know that is not true.
A child born into a wealthy family has access to better schools, better support, and
better networks. A child born in a poor mining community often has to fight just to
access basic education and stability. So even if both children are “free” to become
anything, their starting points are completely different.
