Final answer:
John Rawls' view on distributive justice is not focused on rewarding effort and moral desert, but rather on the principles that would benefit the least advantaged under the original position and the veil of ignorance.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that Rawls argued that distributive justice is a matter of rewarding effort and moral desert is false. John Rawls' theory of distributive justice is based on the idea that justice should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged in society. His two principles of justice, including the Difference Principle, suggest that any social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. This does not align with the idea of distributing resources strictly based on effort or moral desert, as suggested by other philosophers like Aristotle or Locke.
Instead, Rawls proposed the original position and the veil of ignorance, hypothetical situations in which individuals choose principles of justice without knowing their place in society, to ensure that the resulting principles are fair and impartial. This framework led to the development of his two principles, of which the second is the Difference Principle. Rather than focusing solely on rewarding effort or moral desert, Rawls emphasized creating a fair system that improves the position of the least well-off.