**Introduction**

The question of whether government schemes to help the disadvantaged can be justified in terms of the theory of justice is a complex and nuanced one. The theory of justice encompasses various perspectives, but a commonly referenced framework is John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness. In this theory, Rawls argues for a just society based on the principles of equality, fairness, and the maximization of the well-being of the least advantaged.

**Justification through the Theory of Justice as Fairness**

1. **Principle of Equal Basic Liberties:** The theory of justice as fairness emphasizes the equal distribution of basic liberties to all individuals. Government schemes that aim to help the disadvantaged can be justified under this principle, as they strive to address the structural inequalities that prevent certain individuals from enjoying their basic liberties. By providing support and opportunities to the disadvantaged, these schemes aim to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to exercise their basic liberties.

2. **Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity:** Rawls argues that individuals should have equal access to opportunities. Government schemes that focus on providing education, healthcare, and skills training to the disadvantaged can be justified under this principle. These schemes aim to level the playing field and provide equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic background. By addressing the barriers that prevent the disadvantaged from accessing opportunities, these schemes promote fairness and equal chances for upward social mobility.

3. **Principle of Difference and the Maximin Rule:** Rawls' theory of justice as fairness also includes the principle of difference, which allows for inequalities as long as they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Government schemes that provide targeted support to the disadvantaged can be justified under this principle. By redistributing resources and wealth to those who need it the most, these schemes aim to improve the well-being of the least advantaged in society.

**Counterarguments and Caveats**

1. **Efficiency and Incentives:** Critics argue that government schemes aimed at helping the disadvantaged can create dependency and disincentivize individual effort. They contend that such schemes may hinder economic growth and reduce overall welfare. However, these concerns can be addressed through careful design and implementation of the schemes, ensuring that they provide temporary support and also promote self-sufficiency and empowerment.

2. **Burden on Taxpayers:** Another criticism is that government schemes may impose a heavy burden on taxpayers, particularly those who are not directly benefiting from the schemes. However, proponents argue that a just society requires the redistribution of resources to address systemic inequalities and promote social cohesion. Moreover, the long-term benefits of a more equitable society, such as reduced crime rates and improved social mobility, can outweigh the short-term costs.

**Conclusion**

In conclusion, government schemes aimed at helping the disadvantaged can be justified in terms of the theory of justice as fairness. These schemes align with the principles of equal basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and the principle of difference. While there are legitimate concerns and counterarguments, careful design and implementation of these schemes can address these issues and contribute to a more just and equitable society.