Coast Hotel V. Parrish, 300 US 379 (1937)

Now that the objection of self-interest has been refuted, the emphasis needs to shift towards an explanation of Rawls second principle of justice. The second principle, commonly referred to as the “Difference Principle,” indicates that, “[S]ocial and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.” Rawls specifies that the “Liberty Principle” is “lexicographical”. This means that the principles are hierarchically ordered where the first principle must be satisfied before the second can even be considered. Equivalently, the priority is a serial one. This indicates that issues of liberty should permanently have conclusive …show more content…
Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). In this case, the state of Washington had passed the “Minimum Wages for Women” law in 1932. This law established a wage of $14.50 for a 48-hour workweek. After being let go from her job as a hotel cleaner at the West Coast Hotel, Elsie Parrish demanded the balance owed from the hotel that was due to her. The hotel refused and Parrish sued, seeking the balance of her income. West Coast Hotel claimed that the law was unconstitutional. The State Court agreed, but the Washington State Supreme Court overruled that decision on an appeal by Parrish. The West Coast Hotel then appealed to the U.S. Supreme …show more content…
Further, there has been a consideration of intuitive arguments against accepting Rawls’ principles, or their lexicographical ordering. Those arguments have been counteracted. I could persist in presenting examples like West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, or answer objections to Rawls principles of justice in a comparative process using known judgments of justice. This, however, seems subordinate to actually explaining how the application of Rawls' “maximin” rule to the principles of justice would provide an equally satisfactory solution to the problem of distributive