John Rawls argues that economic inequality is only justified if it benefits the least advantaged in society (the Difference Principle) and arises under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. He introduces a hypothetical “original position,” in which rational individuals, placed behind a “veil of ignorance” (unaware of their future social status), would choose principles of justice that prioritize the worst-off. While Rawls accepts some inequality as a necessary incentive for productivity, he insists it must not compromise basic liberties or fairness. His theory seeks to balance meritocracy with social justice, ensuring that inequalities serve the common good rather than entrenching privilege. Rawls’ approach has drawn significant criticism from various perspectives. Libertarians, such as Robert Nozick, argue that the Difference Principle unjustly infringes on individual liberty and property rights by mandating redistribution. Others contend that Rawls’ endorsement of merit-based incentives can still legitimize excessive disparities, weakening his egalitarian goals. Amartya Sen, meanwhile, challenges Rawls’ focus on transcendental institutionalism—developing ideal principles for a hypothetical society—and instead advocates for a realization-centered approach that prioritizes actual outcomes over abstract ideals.