ipl-logo

Utilitarianism: John Rawls's Theory Of Justice

1635 Words7 Pages

Utilitarianism is a term in which John Rawls rejects on two main grounds. Utilitarianism ignores the distinctness of persons and defines the right in terms of the good, according to Rawls. Rawls aims to create a theory of justice (thought experiment in this sense) that is superior to Utilitarianism and offers an intuitive dynamic. Rawls’ theory of justice as a result, can best be described as an attempt to apply in his terms a consistent analogy on the distinctness of persons and prioritising the right over the good . Rawls himself talks about justice as free and equal persons cooperating and agreeing to certain terms in fair conditions, hence the term “justice as fairness” . This notion revolves around the allocation of goods in society. Immanuel Kant is a theorists whom Rawls would’ve been inspired by, particularly when evaluating political and social institutions . Rawls argues individuals would support the notion of distributive justice concerning the equal distribution of goods if it involved elements of fairness and neutrality. In other words, if every individual was equal from when they were brought into the world they would vow for an equal distribution of goods. This is known as the “original …show more content…

However, it is argued that there are many flaws to Rawls’ theory of justice, particularly in relation to the “original position” and the basic structure of society as the primary subject of justice. This will be argued in the first half of this essay. Another flaw of Rawls’ arises in relation to his two principles of justice, the second principle in relation to distributive justice and the individual’s right to self-ownership. This will be discussed in the latter half of this essay and reinforced by the works of Robert Nozick. A concise conclusion will then be made in relation to Rawls’ theory of justice and whether it truly revived the social contract

Show More
Related

  • John Rawls Philosophy

    901 Words  | 4 Pages

    I will talk about John Rawls’ philosophy and two major critiques made to his work by G.A. Cohen John Rawls was born in Baltimore in 1921. He was always concerned about poverty in the United States and wanted to change the society he lived in. He wrote his most famous book A Theory of Justice in 1971. This book is considered the most important book in American philosophy after the World War II. John Rawls philosophy is based on his vision of justice.

    Read More

  • The Life And Legacy Of Robert Gould Shaw

    775 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rawls’ idea of justice as fairness, which he presented in his book, “A Theory of Justice,” emphasizes the importance of equal opportunities and equal distribution of wealth and resources in society. This idea resonates with me because, as someone who values fairness and equality, I believe that everyone should have the same chance to succeed and live a fulfilling life. Rawls’ work has taught me to be more aware of societal inequalities and to work towards creating a fairer and more just

    Read More

  • Famine Affluence And Morality Analysis

    1790 Words  | 8 Pages

    This approach says that a society is in some sense is an agreement amount all those who make up the society. In the analogy Rawls shows his disagrements and gives solutions or what he things is a more just way of doing such things. Rawls starts off by saying “I believe that the contrast between the contract view and utilitarianism remains essentially the same in all these cases. There fore I shall compare justice as fairness with familiar variants of intuitionism, perfectionism, and utilitarianism in order to bring out the underlying difference in the simplest way.” Rawls strongly opposes utilitarianism.

    Read More

  • John Rawls Vs Nozick

    568 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Rawls and Robert Nozick are well known as the most eminent political philosophers of the U.S in the late twentieth century. Both of them have had their views of justice and are reviewed and explained as follows: Rawls did a work in 1971 and was about A Theory of Justice. This was his major work that he did, and it greatly assisted to shape a social justice concept, which is social democratic and liberal. He provided a theory that represented an alternative to utilitarianism.

    Read More

  • Egalitarianism In Obamacare

    1048 Words  | 5 Pages

    In our society, people are either born rich and powerful, having the rights and opportunities that those who are born into lower-class would not have. So why should we live in a government system where we allow these inequities to happen? In Justice, Michael J. Sandel discusses John Rawls’ arguments over defining a just society. Rawls believes that “we should reject the contention that the ordering of institution is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are unjust, and this injustice must inevitably carry over to human arrangements. Occasionally this reflection is offered as an excuse for ignoring injustice, as if refusal to acquiesce in injustice is on par with being unable to accept death.

    Read More

  • Distributive Justice In Health Care Ethics

    2094 Words  | 9 Pages

    Distributive justice is a recently used theory used by the political and ethical decision maker’s philosophers. According to the Samuel Fleischacker 's on his book “A Short History of Distributive Justice” he have mention that distributive justices is a product of 18th-century Enlightenment thought, and particularly of the claims of the radical French revolutionary. This idea was originated from the great Greek Philosopher Aristotle. However in this led the 20th century philosopher like Rawl 's, Nozick and others a foundation for debate on this issue. 1.1 Justices Justices is the quality of social institution.

    Read More

  • John Rawls Individualism

    1972 Words  | 8 Pages

    Thus, in his book A Theory of Justice (1971), he provides us with a theory that he calls Justice as Fairness, aiming to the setting up a fair and just society for all, considering the existing inequalities. The model of this theory was like a response to the Utilitarianism, which does not take into account the rights and liberties of the minorities. The reason to come up with something substitutional to the prevailing utilitarian theory, can be traced to the very basic assumptions that according to Rawls, constitute human nature. Rawls believes that humans are individuals, differently equipped with physical features, natural talents and circumstances. What puts them on an equal basis, is their capacity of rationality and reasoning, meaning that individuals are rational in terms of conceptualizing what is good for themselves, but at the same time, they are reasonable in terms of acknowledging the right things for themselves and for the others in the community.

    Read More

  • George Mill's Theory Of Utilitarianism

    849 Words  | 4 Pages

    Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. This identifies it within a framework of regarding the morality of an action being guided by the consequences it produces. The normative morality of utilitarianism places its locus of the rightfulness of an action being that which produces the most happiness and the least of pain. The action of wrongfulness is that which is adverse, produces a higher result of pain and less of happiness. This is the standard central foundation of this theory.

    Read More

  • Michael Sandel's 'The Politics Of Public Identity'

    1326 Words  | 6 Pages

    Both Nozick and John Rawls admires how the system promotes individuality and pluralism. The government also is limited to the merely protection of individual rights. However, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, granting communitarianism to be the best system out of the two. Michael Sandel’s communitarianism is a practical system where communities rule together. Individual rights would be more significant if they were united.

    Read More

  • Hobbes Vs Rawls Analysis

    1591 Words  | 7 Pages

    Political theorists, whether they are realists, or liberalists, over the centuries, have come into conflict over what they believe to be the utmost important task of the state. Hobbes believes the most important task of the state is to ensure law and order, rooting his argument in the idea of a sovereign ruler. On the other hand, Rawls, a modern theorist, firmly believes that a state should focus on realising justice within their society. While a utopian society cannot be achieved by either of these theories, I will highlight why Rawls was right in his assumption that the main focus of a state should be to ensure justice for all within their nation, through analysing and comparing the conflicting arguments of Hobbes and Rawls.

    Read More

  • John Rawls The Law Of Peoples Summary

    1463 Words  | 6 Pages

    J RAWLS, The Laws of Peoples-with the Idea of Public Reason Revisited, Harvard University Press: USA, 1999. John Rawls was an influential political philosopher and his publications are widely read. One of which is the Law of Peoples published in 1993 which is the subject of my study. In the Law of Peoples Rawls concerns of the general principles whereby one can uphold and be accept by the liberal people as well as the non-liberal society. “This principle is a standard for which can be useful in regulating the behavior of the citizens towards one and other.”

    Read More

  • Analyzing Rawls Two Concepts Of Rules

    1102 Words  | 5 Pages

    In Rawls’ paper, “Two Concepts of Rules”, he sheds light on fact that a distinction between justifying a practice and actions that fall under said practice, must be made. This distinction, according to Rawls is crucial in the debate between Utilitarianism and Retributivism, more specifically in defending the Utilitarian view against common criticisms, which will be addressed further in this essay. This essay will be examining the troubling moral question that Rawls addresses; The subject of punishment, in the sense of attaching legal penalties to the violation of legal rules. Rawls acknowledges that most people hold the view that punishing, in broad terms, is an acceptable institution. However, there are difficulties involved with accepting

    Read More

  • Essay On Distributive Justice

    742 Words  | 3 Pages

    THE PHILOSOPHY OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE SYSTEM Ashish Kumar Distributive Justice or Economic Justice or the Fair Share principle, as the name suggests, is basically concerned with the social and economic welfare of the citizens. It says that an equal society is that where there is a fair allocation of the material goods and services between all the sections of the society. John Rawls, the main theorist of Distributive Justice gives two basic principles of Fairness or Fair Share related to Distributive Justice. The Constitution of India, through Article 14, 15, 16, 38, 39, 39(A) enforces the principle of distributive justice. Distributive justice exists in a society where there exists no inequality, so the Indian constitution through these articles tries to remove the prevailing inequalities in the society.

    Read More

  • John Rawls: The Benefits Of Natural Talents

    913 Words  | 4 Pages

    John Rawls believed that if certain individuals had natural talents, they did not always deserve the benefits that came with having these abilities. Instead, Rawls proposed, these inherent advantages should be used to benefit others. Although Rawls makes an excellent argument on why this should be the case, not all philosophers agreed with his reasoning, especially Robert Nozick. Nozick believed in distributing benefits in a fair manner in accordance with the Entitlement Theory, which has three subsections: Just Acquisition, Just Transfer and Just Rectification.

    Read More

  • John Rawls: Justice As Equality

    1821 Words  | 8 Pages

    Distributive justice by definition deals with the distribution of benefits and burdens across members of a society. Over time, philosophers have argued how these benefits and burdens should be distributed as what results from them fundamentally affects people’s lives. John Rawls, an American moral and political philosopher argued as a liberal “Justice as Equality” by means of his three principles of justice: the principle of equal liberty, equal opportunity and difference. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from harm by others, but also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty (Minogue, Girvetz, Dagger & Ball, 2018). Rawls believed that everyone in society should have had equal political rights, although social and economic inequalities existed, but only under the condition that they were to the maximum advantage of the least advantaged people in society.

    Read More

More about Utilitarianism: John Rawls's Theory Of Justice

Open Document