Final answer:
John Rawls argues that a meritocratic society does not correct for all disadvantages, which makes the statement false. He emphasizes fair equality of opportunity and the necessity of societal structures to benefit the least advantaged through his two-principle approach.
Step-by-step explanation:
John Rawls argues that a meritocratic society does correct for some, but not all disadvantages. The statement is false. Rawls is known for his two-principle approach to societal structure. The first is the liberty principle, which states each person has an equal right to basic, adequate liberties. The second, the difference principle, states that while there may be social and economic inequalities, they must be arranged in such a way that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society, and attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Rawls does not advocate for strictly equal distribution of resources, nor does he support unwarranted handouts. Instead, his difference principle suggests that a just society allows for differential rewards for socially useful pursuits, but at the same time works to improve the lot of the disadvantageous. This includes not only providing fair opportunities but also ensuring that any societal advantage, such as a highly paid position, is configured in a way that, if it leads to inequalities, these must ultimately benefit the least advantaged.