Utilitarianism and Rawls's Theory of Justice

Utilitarianism vs Rawls' Theory of Justice
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 philosoph...