Utilitarianism and Rawls's Theory of Justice
This assignment asks you to compare utilitarianism to some other ethical approach that we have studied in this class. To refresh your memory about utilitarianism, see Chapter 7 of Hausman, McPherson, and Satz.
In this assignment, you should clearly state which other ethical approach that we studied in class you are contrasting utilitarianism to. It could be cost-benefit analysis and efficiency, Rawls's theory of justice, Nozick's entitlement theory, the approach of liberty, rights, or human rights, or democracy or some other value. That is, you should contrast some other value with utilitarianism. You should cite some reading that we did speaks about this alternative view.
You should discuss some issue, what utilitarianism would say about it and what the alternative ethical view would say about it. You should explain the strengths and weaknesses of each view, and you should present an argument about which view is better.
The issue must be different than the issue that you discussed in your first paper.
You should conclude with a paragraph about general lessons about the problems or advantages of utilitarianism in general beyond the particular issue that you are discussing.
Your paper should have a main thesis statement which you support with arguments, evidence, and reasoning. Please reference at least two of the assigned readings.
• Length: 5 pages (double spaced)
• Due: Thursday, December 7 by 5pm.
Comparing Utilitarianism and Rawls' Theory of Justice
Utilitarianism and Rawls' theory of justice are two ethical approaches that seek to guide how society should be structured to maximize fairness and well-being. Utilitarianism holds that the right course of action is the one that will produce the greatest good for the most significant number of people (Dayton, 1979). On the other hand, Rawls' theory of justice advocates for equal fundamental liberties for all and inequalities to benefit the least advantaged members of society (Wenar, 2017). While both approaches aim to ensure that social arrangements are, they differ in their underlying principles and the specific outcomes they seek to achieve. This paper will examine both approaches and assess their strengths and weaknesses to determine which, if either, is a better guide for creating a just society.
Utilitarianism
Although utilitarianism offers a clear and compelling framework for assessing the morality of actions, institutions, and policies, it is not without its challenges. In particular, operationalizing the theory in practice can be difficult, as it requires judgments about how to measure and compare the utility of different individuals (Nathanson, 2019). Furthermore, critics argue that utilitarianism's focus on maximizing total welfare can lead to morally problematic outcomes in some instances. Utilitarians have responded to these concerns in various ways, but ultimately the viability of the theory depends on how well it can address these objections. One key aspect of utilitarianism is that it is impartial: everyone's welfare counts equally. This means that, in principle, a utilitarian should not be swayed by personal attachments or biases. However, utilitarians sometimes consider the diminishing marginal utility of income, which argues that an extra thousand dollars are worth more to someone with a low income than someone with a high income (Ross, 2020). A utilitarian might favor policies that redistribute resources more equitably in such cases. There are a few variations within utilitarianism. For example, total utilitarianism aims to maximize the total sum of utility, while average utilitarianism seeks to maximize the average utility per person. Another distinction is between act utilitarianism, which looks at the consequences of individual actions, and rules utilitarianism, which looks at the effects of adopting specific rules or principles. Utilitarianism has some advantages, such as its focus on human well-being and its ability to provide guidance when people's intuitions conflict. However, it also faces some objections, such as that it can lead to results that clash with traditional moral intuitions (Kay, 2018). For example, if a utilitarian concludes that a hereditary caste society would result in total happiness than a liberal democracy, they would have to opt for the caste society. Utilitarians respond to these objections in various ways, such as by arguing that the problematic scenarios are unrealistic or that we should revise our intuitions in light of the overall goal of maximizing welfare.
Rawls' theory of justice
Although John Rawls' theory of justice has been influential in contemporary political philosophy, it is not without its critics. One key concern is that the principle of equal fundamental liberties may be too absolute (Wenar, 2017). Rawls insists that these liberties should not be subject to political bargaining, but in reality, such compromises are often necessary to maintain social order. Another critique concerns the difference principle (Richardson, n.d.). Some argue that this principle fails to consider how individuals can work to improve their situation and that it could potentially discourage productivity and innovation. Finally, critics question the validity of the "original position" thought experiment. They argue that it is unrealistic to assume that people would be able to ultimately disregard their self-interest when designing principles of justice. Despite these criticisms, Rawls' theory of justice remains a significant and influential contribution to political philosophy.
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls articulates a nuanced and compelling argument for a society rooted in principles of fairness and equality. By posting the "original position" and the "veil of ignorance," Rawls cleverly sidesteps the issue of bias and self-interest, forcing us to consider what a just society would look like if we were all operating from the same level playing field (CFI Team, 2022). The two principles of justice that Rawls arrives at—the equal fundamental liberties principle and the difference principle—work in tandem to ensure fundamental rights for all citizens and allow for some inequalities as long as they work to the benefit of the most disadvantaged (Rawls Theory of Justice,...