Todd J Vasos Political Party, Moyra's House, Brisbane, Articles R

Both the theories are systematic and constructive in character, both treat commonsense notions of justice as deriving from a more authoritative standard, and both are committed to distributive holism, in the sense that they regard the justice of any assignment of benefits to a particular individual as dependent on the justice of the overall distribution of benefits in society. After characterizing classical utilitarianism as the ethic of perfect altruists, moreover, Rawls goes on in the next several pages to ask what theory of justice would be preferred by an impartial, sympathetic spectator who did not conflate all systems of desires into one. Perhaps so, but Rawls shouldn't concede too much here. If you pressed them, utilitarians would admit that it is at least possible that they would be willing to make life intolerable for some people. Fourth, they have argued that Rawls's own principles of justice are not altogether riskfree, since the general conception of justiceasfairness would permit the infringement of basic liberties under extraordinary conditions. <> Unless the decision facing the parties in the original position satisfies those conditions, the principle of average utility may be a better choice for the parties even if it is riskier, since it may also hold out the prospect of greater gain (TJ 1656). Thus it would not occur to them to acknowledge the principle of utility in its hedonistic form. Kenneth Arrow, Some OrdinalistUtilitarian Notes on Rawls's Theory of Justice, Holly Smith Goldman, Rawls and Utilitarianism, in, R. M. Hare, Rawls' Theory of Justice, in, John Harsanyi, Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? This possibility arises, Rawls suggests, because utilitarianism relies entirely on certain standard assumptions (TJ 159) to demonstrate that its calculations will not normally support severe restrictions on individual liberties. Nor are less egalitarian views than Rawlss. <> Yet in Social Unity and Primary Goods, where he builds on an argument first broached in the final four paragraphs of Section 28 of TJ, Rawls contends that even contemporary versions of utilitarianism are often covertly or implicitly hedonistic. I have discussed some related themes in Individual Responsibility in a Global Age, Chapter Two in this volume. WebQuestion 4 Rawls rejects utilitarianism because: a) He saw it as a threat. b) It might permit an unfair distribution of burdens and benefits. (9) When Native Americans saw Sacagawea carrying her baby, they took it as a tacit sign that the explorers came in peace. Sacagawea's knowledge of the region helped guide the expedition. It is a feature of the Original Position, of course. Rawls contends that people would find losing out in this way unacceptable. This extension to society as a whole of the principle of choice for a single individual is facilitated, Rawls believes, by treating the approval of a perfectly sympathetic and ideally rational and impartial spectator as the standard of what is just.