The argument is that the parties, knowing that they exist and wishing only to advance their own interests, would have no desire to maximize the net aggregate satisfaction, especially since doing so might require growth in the size of the population even at the expense of a significant reduction in the average utility per person. WebHe thinks that Rawls rejects utilitarianism primarily because it lacks a fait principle ofdistribution and argues that a demand for justice and fair distribution does not yield any Within contemporary political philosophy, this tendency receives what is perhaps its most forceful expression in Nozick's work, and it is noteworthy that a resistance to distributive holism appears to be part of what lies behind his objection to endresult principles.30 These principles are said to assess the justice of a given distribution or sequence of distributions, solely by seeing whether the associated distributional matrix satisfies some structural criterion, rather than by taking into account historical information about how the distribution came to pass. However, utilitarians reject the publicity condition. With respect to the first condition, Rawls observes in section 28 that, from the standpoint of the original position, the prima facie appeal of average utility depends on the assumption that one has an equal chance of turning out to be anybody once the veil of ignorance is lifted. Third, they have questioned whether Rawls's principles can truly be said to guarantee the parties a satisfactory minimum and whether the parties, who are ignorant of their conceptions of the good, can truly be said to care little for gains above such a minimum. 7 0 obj WebAbstract. They adopt a particular rule for making decisions under uncertainty: maximize expected utility. Second, they regard what Rawls calls stability as an important criterion for choosing principles. Utilitarianism, of course, achieves this aim by identifying a single principle as the ultimate standard for adjudicating among conflicting precepts. <> x[K#A?. See Responsibility, Reactive Attitudes, and Liberalism in Philosophy and Politics, Chapter One in this volume. One-Hour Seminary - What About People Who Have Nev Dr. Michael Brown Speaking at Our Summer 2018 Conf What Makes Jesus Different From Other Gods? Society should guarantee a minimum standard of living for its members; their material well-being relative to one another is much less important than the absolute well-being of those at the bottom. These considerations implicate some significant general issuesabout the justificatory function of the original position and about the changes in Rawls's views over timewhich lie beyond the scope of this essay. But this is no reason not to try (TJ viii). They are told what is good or bad for us and then they have to choose principles that will serve the interests they are told we have. Sacagawea proved her value to the expedition on many occassions. 5 0 obj He thinks this is true of those teleological theories he describes as perfectionist, of certain religious views, and also of classical utilitarianism in so far as its account of the good is understood hedonistically. They can also help us to see that some people may be troubled by Rawls's arguments against utilitarianism, not because they sympathize with those aspects of the view that he criticizes, but rather because they are critical of those aspects of the view with which he sympathizes. Holism about distributive justice draws support from two convictions. The project is Since theyre on the same scale, you could compare them and even make up for deficits in the one with an excess of the other. Eventually, youll get back to even. Often, for example, we seem prepared to say that an individual deserves or has a right to some benefit, and that it is therefore just that he should get it, without inquiring into the larger distributional context. Yet both the Rawlsian and the utilitarian accounts are indeed holistic, and this may be part of what Nozick finds objectionable about them. endobj Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. Rawls believes that teleological theories, which define the good independently of the right and define the right as maximizing the good, tend also to interpret the good in monistic terms. In other words, there is a prior standard of desert by reference to which the justice of individual actions and institutional arrangements is to be assessed. 28 May 2006. For at least part of his complaint is that they exaggerate the significance of the overall distributional context and attach insufficient importance to local features of particular transactions. But all the work in the argument will come from our decision about what to tell the parties in the original position rather than from what they choose. Nevertheless, once we recognize that, for some people, the words in which Rawls articulates his criticism may serve as a way of expressing resistance to holism, it is understandable why some who have echoed those words have not followed Rawls in seeking to devise a constructive and systematic alternative to utilitarianism. So that, strictly conceived, the point up to which, on Utilitarian principles, population ought to be encouraged to increase, is not that at which average happiness is the greatest possible,as appears to be often assumed by political economists of the school of Malthusbut that at which the product formed by multiplying the number of persons living into the amount of average happiness reaches its maximum.** The Methods of Ethics, IV.1.2, 34. Rawls will emphasize the publicity condition in order to show that utilitarians cant give people the kind of security that his principles can. It is noteworthy that this argument against classical utilitarianism is developed without reference to the apparatus of the original position and is not dependent on that apparatus. If this is correct, then it remains difficult to see how classical utilitarianism could be included in an overlapping consensus. endobj For each key term or person in the lesson, write a sentence explaining its significance. please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. (10) At first, she wasn't receptive to this offer, but she eventually agreed. This is something he believes that utilitarianism can never do, despite the liberal credentials of its greatest advocates. Columbia University Press, 1993 (paperback edition, 1996). endobj In 29, Rawls advances two arguments that, in my opinion, boil down to one. The conception of the two principles does not interpret the primary problem of distributive justice as one of allocative justice (TJ 889). Yet Rawls had said quite explicitly in A Theory of Justice that classical utilitarianism does not accept that idea (TJ 33). As Rawls says: A distribution cannot be judged in isolation from the system of which it is the outcome or from what individuals have done in good faith in the light of established expectations. Content may require purchase if you do not have access. These people will inevitably conclude that his criticisms of utilitarianism do not go far enough, and that his own theory exhibits some of the same faults that they see in the utilitarian view. are highly problematical, whereas the hardship if things turn out badly are [sic] intolerable (TJ 175). Rawlss single-minded focus on presenting an alternative to utilitarianism is a blessing and a curse. WebPhysicians and janitors earn more because they help to keep society well and sanitary. John Rawls (b. 1921, d. 2002) was an American political philosopher in the liberal tradition. His theory of justice as fairness describes a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights and cooperating within an egalitarian economic system. Rather, it appears to play a role in motivating the design of the original position itself. In short, utilitarianism gives the aggregative good precedence over the goods of distinct individuals whereas Rawls's principles do not. If hes right about that, the parties cannot perform the calculations needed to use the maximize expected utility rule. It is an alternative to As applied to Rawls, this characterization does not seem right, given the lexical priority of his first principle over his second principle and the fact that he treats the question of distributive shares as a matter of pure procedural justice. Since utilitarianism puts individual liberty on the same scale as economic opportunity and wealth, he reasoned, the parties would reject utilitarianism. But utilitarianism has some problems. Second, however, they have wondered why, if Rawls believes that it would be unduly risky for the parties to rely on probabilities that are not grounded in information about their society, he fails to provide them with that information. In other words, there is a difference between maximizing average utility and maximizing utility, period. Part of Rawls's point, when calling attention in Two Concepts of Rules to the interest of the classical utilitarians in social institutions, was to emphasize that the construal of utilitarianism as supplying a comprehensive standard of appraisal represents a relatively recent development of the view: one he associates, in that essay, with Moore. A Theory of Justice tackles many things. This is the sort of argument that Samuel criticized earlier. As Rawls emphasizes, utilitarianism does not share his view that special first principles are required for the basic structure (PL 262), notwithstanding its broad institutional emphasis, nor does it agree that the question of distributive shares should be treated as a matter of pure procedural justice (TJ 889). Whether or not these arguments are successful, they may be seen in part as responses to the emphasis on system that is a feature both of Rawls's theory and of utilitarianism. In this sense, utilitarianism takes the distinctions among persons less seriously than his principles do. As I have argued elswhere, neither Rawls nor the utilitarian thinks about distributive justice in this way.29 For them, the principles of distributive justice, holistically understood, are fixed without reference to any prior notion of desert, and individuals may then be said to deserve the benefits to which they are entitled according to the criteria established by just institutions. In the end, he speculates, we are likely to settle upon a variant of the utility principle circumscribed and restricted in certain ad hoc ways by intuitionistic constraints. Critics of utilitarianism, he says, have pointed out that many of its implications run counter to our moral convictions and sentiments, but they have failed to construct a workable and systematic moral conception to oppose it (TJ viii). Leaving the utilitarians to one side for a moment, I think Rawls was trying to make a similar point about politics at the end of 28 and in 82. If the idea is that utilitarianism is wrong in holding that happiness is what is good for us, then the original position argument is irrelevant. The first is almost certainly wrong: the parties do know the chances of being any particular person are equal to the chance of being anyone else. John Rawls and the Search for Stability, Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought, Responsibility, Reactive Attitudes, and Liberalism in Philosophy and Politics, Individual Responsibility in a Global Age, Liberalism, Nationalism, and Egalitarianism, The Conflict Between Justice and Responsibility, Morality through Thick and Thin: A Critical Notice of Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, Archaeological Methodology and Techniques, Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning, Literary Studies (African American Literature), Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers), Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature), Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques, Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge, Browse content in Company and Commercial Law, Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law, Private International Law and Conflict of Laws, Browse content in Legal System and Practice, Browse content in Allied Health Professions, Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics, Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology, Browse content in Science and Mathematics, Study and Communication Skills in Life Sciences, Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry, Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography, Browse content in Engineering and Technology, Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building, Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology, Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science), Environmentalist and Conservationist Organizations (Environmental Science), Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science), Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science), Natural Disasters (Environmental Science), Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science), Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science), Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System, Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction, Psychology Professional Development and Training, Browse content in Business and Management, Information and Communication Technologies, Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice, International and Comparative Criminology, Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics, Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs, Conservation of the Environment (Social Science), Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science), Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science), Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science), Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies, Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences, Browse content in Regional and Area Studies, Browse content in Research and Information, Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work, Human Behaviour and the Social Environment, International and Global Issues in Social Work, Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice, Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1093/0199257671.001.0001, https://doi.org/10.1093/0199257671.003.0010.