Final answer:
John Rawls' philosophical theory of distributive justice is not based on the notion of rewarding effort and moral desert but instead on principles that aim to benefit the least advantaged in society. His 'Difference Principle' suggests that inequalities are just if they benefit everyone, especially the less well-off. The statement in the question is false.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that Rawls argued that distributive justice is a matter of rewarding effort and moral desert is false. Instead, John Rawls’ Theory of Distributive Justice focuses on principles that do not necessarily link just distribution with individual effort or desert. Rawls' central idea is the Difference Principle, which asserts that social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Rawls proposes a hypothetical scenario where individuals would devise a social contract from behind a 'veil of ignorance'. In this state of ignorance about their own place in society, they would choose principles of justice that ensure fairness and impartiality. Thus, Rawls’ theory is not about rewarding effort directly but rather about ensuring that any social and economic inequalities benefit the least advantaged members of society.
Moreover, Rawls’ view differs significantly from those who support desert-based distributive justice, like John Locke, who argued that people deserve the products of their labor. Instead, Rawls’ principle implies that if inequalities result in improvements for society as a whole, particularly for the least well-off, then these inequalities can be considered just.