ABSTRACT
Gerald Cohen rightly points out that the lowest incomes could be even larger if people were willing to be more productive even without special rewards. Cohen claims that the dispositions of the talented are unjust if they render optimal a tax regime that results in so high a reward multiple. While Cohen clearly favors supergoal monism in what he urges upon Rawlsians, Liam B. Murphy's predilections are hard to discern. Murphy argues that social institutions cannot make this difference by pointing out that cooperation is a matter of degree and therefore subject to sorites problems. The author main concern has been to defend such dualist theorizing against the internal monistic challenges advanced by Cohen and Murphy and to rebut criticisms of the kind of range limit John Rawls builds into his criterion of justice. Cohen's claim is positive and general: Any adequate conception of distributive justice must have a wider range than Rawls's.
