society. Principle 1 “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all.” Principle 2 “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) to the greatest benefit to the least advantaged, consistent with a just savings principle, and b) attached to offices and position open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.” 5 If these are the principles most people would agree upon, the findings of this thought experiment have moral weight. In the context of a political ideology Rawls's theory has important consequences: an unequal distribution of goods is only just, if everyone will benefit from it, including the weakest. A progressive taxation for example can be justified with Rawls's theory: if person A earns more than person B, this is an unequal distribution of goods. According to Rawls, the difference in wage can only be justified, if the weakest(person B) benefit from it. A common way to organize this is to tax person A's income and use his money to the benefit of society. To which extent such a redistribution of wealth has to take place highlights one of the main distinctions between different political ideologies. Every society and political party that seeks for justice has to constantly work on the following question: how unequal can a society be without being unjust? In this discourse two different dimensions have to be considered. They are the dimensions'equality of social and material goods' and'equality of opportunity'. Obviously, they go hand in hand: no opportunity for education leads to little chance of wealth. Sadly, in many countries around the world, this is also valid the other way round: little wealth leads to no opportunity for education. In the recent debate,'recognition' has been added as a third dimension. The stigmatization of the unemployed in many societies might exemplify this third aspect of justice. The social exclusion of unemployed takes place due to their lack of wealth. Studies confirm that the lack of respect of society for people without income has strong negative effects on them. The worst off feel that they live in an unjust society, not only because of a huge gap in wealth, but also because of their low social status. In order to deal effectively with existing inequality and injustice, a needs­based approach has to be implemented. A society that aims for justice should always consider what the underprivileged and the worst off need. Without doubt, achievements of well-off members of the society must be acknowledged; and social democrats clearly accept the distribution of income and property according to achievements.(Everything else would be close to communism.) But a just society should always be concerned with what the social situations of its members require. Food, education and health care are goods that every society worldwide should try to supply its poorest members in all situations. The exact conditions have to be debated according to the specific countries and under the specific conditions. In the 5 Rawls, John(1979), A Theory of Justice, revised edition, Harvard University Press: 81, 336. Core Values “Sadly, in many countries around the world, this is also valid the other way round: little wealth leads to no opportunity for education.” 11