John Rawls And Utilitarianism Essay Research Paper

John Rawls And Utilitarianism Essay, Research Paper

John Rawls and Utilitarianism

Heath C. Hoculock

The social contract theory of John Rawls challenges utilitarianism by

pointing out the impracticality of the theory. Mainly, in a society of

utilitarians, a citizens rights could be completely ignored if injustice to this

one citizen would benefit the rest of society. Rawls believes that a social

contract theory, similar those proposed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, would be

a more logical solution to the question of fairness in any government. Social

contract theory in general and including the views of Rawls, is such that in a

situation where a society is established of people who are self interested,

rational, and equal, the rules of justice are established by what is mutually

acceptable and agreed upon by all the people therein. This scenario of

negotiating the laws of that society that will be commonly agreed upon and

beneficial to all is what Rawls terms “The Original Position and Justification”.

Rawls states that for this system to work, all citizens must see themselves as

being behind a “veil of ignorance”. By this he means that all deciding parties

in establishing the guidelines of justice (all citizens) must see themselves as

equal to everyone paying no mind to there economic situation or anything else

that they could keep in mind to negotiate a better situation to those qualities.

For example, if everyone in this society has an equal amount of influence toward

the establishing of specific laws, a rich man may propose that taxes should be

equal for all rather than proportionate to ones assets. It is for this and

similar situations that Rawls feels that everyone must become oblivious to

themselves. Rawls believes that the foundational guideline agreed upon by the

those in the original position will be composed of two parts. The first of

these rules of justice being one that enforces equal rights and duties for all

citizens and the later of the two one which regulates the powers and wealth of

all citizens.

In the conception of utilitarianism possessed by Rawls, an impartial

spectator and ideal legislator are necessary components. The impartial

spectator is one who rational and sensitive to all of the desires of society.

The impartial spectator must feel these desires as if they were his own desires

and by doing such, give each of them priority over other desires and organize

them into one system from which the ideal legislator tries to maximize

satisfaction for all citizens by manipulating and adjusting the policy for that

society. By this theory of utilitarianism, Rawls argues that the decision

making process is being integrated into one conscience and that this system

gives no mind to the individual whose rights and freedoms may be ignored because

there beliefs are not widespread. He goes on to say “Utilitarianism does not

take seriously the distinction between persons”(Singer p. 339).

Rawls argues that two principles of justice will emerge from the

negotiations of the original position: “1.each person is to have an equal right

to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others,

2.social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a)

reasonably expected to be everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to the

positions and offices open to all.” The first of these two principles suggests

that everyone have an equal say in the election of a government official and

equal power over the policies put into effect by that official. However, the

second seems to suggest that if it benefits society, then inequalities of

political power are acceptable. Although somewhat contradictory, this seems

reasonable since getting the opinions of everyone every time an issue arose

would be, to say the least, inefficient. According to Rawls, justice as

fairness is far more acceptable than utilitarianism. An example taken from The

Encyclopedia of Political Philosophy explains two situations, one acceptable by

Rawls and the other acceptable under utilitarianism. The first states that

slavery, (if beneficial to the slave as well as everyone else), is indeed

acceptable according to Rawls. The second states that under utilitarianism, a

slaves misery would not matter since overall satisfaction is increased. It is

just this reasoning that Rawls proves his theories superior. Rawls feels that

utilitarianism does not take into account the individual and pays too much mind

to the general happiness. Rawls argues that in this case everyone would be

better off with his social contract theory rather than utilitarianism since

under his theory general happiness would still be increased, but at the expense

of no one or few. Rawls believes that the happiness of many may indeed out

weigh the happiness of the few, but to govern by this would b

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать