Rawls underlines that in violating this basic right a person has failed to do a fundamental duty.
Minimax theory means a rule which can be applied to all decisions in order to determine the maximum possible loss. In contrast, maximin theory implies rules which can help a decision-maker to increase the minimum gain. Rawls states that both prniples can be seen as a reasonable conception of justice. He argues that:
There is an analogy between the two principles and the maximin rule for choice under uncertainty. . . . The maximin rule tells us to rank alternatives by their worst possible outcomes: we are to adopt the alternative the worst outcome of which is superior to the worst outcome of the others' (Rawls 1971, pp.152-3).
For instance, the conditions stipulate that contracting parties follow 'the maximin rule'. Then, they will strive to maximise the supreme welfare level of the least advantaged. The Difference Principle developed by Rawls suggests that it is fundamentally concerned not with absolutes but with relativities (Freeman, 2002). 'The maximin rule' does not demand, as the Difference Principle does, that people must never allow any advance above "the benchmark of equality', save in so far as this advance is 'to the advantage of the least fortunate" (Ralws 2005, p. 153). Still, according to the maximin rule every person can advance but in case others are not deprived their rights. It is important to state that 'disadvantaging' has to be understood as making worse off, not as making worse off just comparatively, and without any modification of further conditions (Freeman, 2002).
This discussion leads researchers to one of the things about both the application to maximin in Rawls and the Difference Principle. Rawls wants both of the rulers to be applied always, and without inquiry into the level of the minimum. In real life situation, those solid, ordinary, and not irrational customers suggest by the relative diffidence of the pools element in their regular budgets that up to some acceptable minimum standard of living they maximin; and then, but only then, maximax. Rawls is thinking of all social goods as distributed by some authority (Pogge and Kosch, 2007). Such a distribution, of what is all at bottom property, can only be a zero sum function: if one individual lacks something, then the reason is solely that it has been allocated to someone else. So what an outsider might see as one individual becoming better off at no one else's expense, looks from inside the world of 'justice as fairness' like that individual being needlessly given what might have been issued instead to another, and ought to have been (Daniels, 1989). The entire argument in Rawls states that all the goods of every kind which have been, are, or will be produced or discovered within their to them unknown nationwide territory, are now available, free of any prior claims, for distribution at the fair collective judgment of the contractors. The various good or ill deserts of the other several characters must all be grounded upon accidents and contingencies; that is, the contingent facts about what they did or failed to do. All such particular and essentially claims about right and desert are in the broadest sense moral and as such disputatious ("Political Egalitarianism" 2008).
This discussion allows me to say that Rawls follows maximin principles in his theory of Justice. He states: "[social