Rawls, Theory of Justice. (Part II)

SCW#4- The utilitarian position emphasizes a form of justice in which the greatest good for the greatest number of people dictates social decisions. Since the nineteenth century, this view, sometimes called the principle of utility, has been fairly dominant in Western democracies. However, Rawls condemns this view because it does not improve the condition of the least advantaged members of society. In fact, it may even harm such people. What is your position on Rawls’s rejection of utility? How carefully must a society that values justice work to prevent enacting laws that might make worse the lives of the least advantaged?
Rawls and Just Society

Utilitarian theory states that morality is achieved through efforts that seek to promote the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people. This ethical theory remains prevalent in modern political philosophy as it aims to satisfy a society’s majority. Philosopher and ethical theorist John Rawls rejects utility theory on the grounds that loss of freedoms incurred by a society’s least advantaged, does not justify any greater good; in other words, the mere fact that only a minority of people may suffer does not warrant the result of true justice. Like Rawls, it is my contention that the sacrifice of a few is not a worthy victory in the battle for justice; in order to achieve true justice, a society or government must meticulously and diligently transcend the mentality that pleasing the majority is a goal sufficient enough to label that society as just.
Rawls’s rejection of utilitarian theory is based on the fact that the lives of the least advantaged members of a society do not improve; in order to understand the implications of Rawls’s standpoint, we need to first understand the principle of utility. The principle of utility or greatest happiness principle states that choosing an act or policy that produces the greater amount of happiness over the alternative, is the morally acceptable choice. “In deciding which action or policy is the most morally compelling, we need only measure the total amount of pleasure and the total amount of pain involved in the alternatives, and choose the alternative with the greatest net pleasure” (Boss, 23). Let’s look at the principle of utility in a practical setting. During the Second World War (WWII) there was a perception of threat of impending nuclear attack on America by Japan. In order to neutralize this threat, it was decided that the best way to eliminate said threat was to initiate the use of nuclear weaponry against Japan. It can be said that a utilitarian methodology was used to decide whether this was the best course of action. Had the American government not isolated this threat and had Japan attacked with nuclear weapons, the loss of many American lives would have been certain. In this case, in order to provide the greatest amount of happiness (minimal loss of American life) it was decided to attack the Japanese to eliminate the threat. Using this example, a strict utilitarian can successfully rationalize how the act of using nuclear weaponry was not only justified, it was in fact moral. This may be easy to accept for some, but for me (and perhaps Rawls) the fact that we may have limited the number of American deaths, does not seem worthy enough a reason to label that particular act as moral. What about the death and destruction caused to the Japanese people? Is the intrinsic value of American life worth more than the life of the Japanese? Do the ends justify the means? Although extreme, this is a perfect example of how utility theory can fall short in the quest for post-conventional moral wisdom. Let’s look at utility in a different situation. One of our country’s most shameful facts is that we utilized, legalized, and promoted slavery. One idea behind slavery was that the use of slaves by owners contributed to individuals by means of productivity as well as contributing to society by increasing commerce and trade. At the time, the use of slavery was seen as “good” because the overall outcome to society outweighed resulting injustices. Certainly nobody would want to excuse the act of slavery as being morally justified however, there was a time when this act was not deemed immoral. Nuclear warfare and slavery, as sensitive of subjects they may be, are both good examples of how this theory has the ability to justify horrific acts that can have potentially devastating outcomes.

In order to prevent injustices that become possible through typical utilitarian thought, a truly just government will seek not only to please the greatest amount of people, but will also aspire to ensure that justice is attainable by all members of its society. For Rawls, a just society begins with the notion that all its members are equal and “…no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like” (Rawls, 238). This original position or “initial status quo” is what allows those who decide the policies of the society to create “just” policies that are of equal fairness to everyone. It is at this starting point that fair and just policy making must begin in order to “ensure that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances” (Rawls, 238) . Rawls understands that self-preservation and self-interest are innate in humans; instead of insisting that we ought not to act on those instincts, Rawls asks us (or those making policy) to recognize those qualities and act in such a way that promotes the pursuance of those qualities by all peoples. This is a crucial element to Rawls’s theory, and one that seems could be commonsensically applied while formulating law and public policy. In other words, those charged with creating the laws of the land, should recognize that their own interests, while subjective, are no more or less important than the interests of others; therefore, since the pursuance of interests remains subjective in nature, the best law ought to be one that allows everyone the fair and equal ability to pursue their best interests. If a society truly values justice and equality, the need of this basic understanding is paramount to achieve the desired results. Without the basic understanding of this concept, those charged with creating the policy of a society will neglect to capture the basic needs (and/or rights) of all individuals.

Many opponents of utilitarian theory contest that “it is not so much wrong as it is incomplete” (Boss, 25). It is clear in Rawls’s work that he does not oppose the theory on the notion that it is wrong, but more so because it is simply not good enough. While utility may seek a quantitative (and sometimes qualitative) goal to justify the morality or “rightness” of an act, for many of us, a higher level of moral doctrine is needed. In short, the many social injustices that occur to the minority cannot be justified simply because the majority does not have to suffer. If any society is to be considered as just, that society should aim to provide equality for all its members.

Rawls: Theory of Justice

“This element of justice is absent in strict utilitarian theory.” This stance by Rawls (as stated by Boss) is the reason I feel that Justice Theory is more humane than strict utilitarian theory. While utility seeks the most overall good, Rawls seems opposed to reaching that good at the potential sacrifice of certain individuals or groups.

I believe that Rawls theory is somewhat similar to rule utility in that it focuses less on individual acts (token) themselves, and instead focuses on rules or guiding principles (type) that will promote fairness and equality for all. I feel that the underlying principle to Rawls’s theory is that if we have to make sacrifices that disadvantage some in order to benefit others, there is something fundamentally wrong and we should focus on seeking change that promotes equality for all involved. Rawls prefaces his introduction to the “veil of ignorance” by talking about the needs of rational persons to pursue their own self-interests. He claims “They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept…This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness.” I think what Rawls is saying here is that, if I as a rational person am aware of what I need in order to pursue my own interests, then I as a rational person should understand that everyone else has the same basic needs and should be equally considered. This type of thought process I feel is similar to Kant’s first formulation of his categorical imperative in that it forces the agent to not think egocentrically, but rather to consider the roles and/or rights of others when weighing moral decisions. To me, these types of theories are morally stronger because their foundation begins at a post-conventional level. Rawls continues on to the “veil of ignorance” idea in which he basically says we need to imagine ourselves with somewhat of a blank slate, where we have no material possessions, net worth, or designated social status; doing this will give us an unbiased approach to formulating rules and doctrine that will allow for equality for all people-not just the benefit of ourselves. This is somewhat similar to sociologist’s idea of “beginners mind” which says that in order for us to truly examine others and see things from their point of view, we need to rid ourselves of all facts and experience so that we can consider something new. Like Kant’s categorical imperative, Rawls has set forth two rules (principles) that when considered properly do a great job of weeding out a significant amount of amoral actions. I especially like the fact that Rawls second principle basically states that social and economic injustices will in fact happen, but when they do happen they should provide an equal advantage to all persons. This type of thinking not only recognizes the reality of social and political injustices we currently have, it also acts as a voice for the disadvantaged.

I feel as if I need more information regarding the actual use of this theory so that I can properly analyze the pros and cons. On the surface it seems very socially and politically acceptable. One concern I have is that because this theory is rule based, I do not feel (based on the information I have) that it provides us with enough guidance for analyzing specific moral dilemmas. As a test example, I tried to use the ongoing debate of abortion while incorporating the logic of Rawls’s theory of justice and found myself getting nowhere in terms of progress; perhaps abortion was too confusing a topic but I’ll use it as an example of my concerns with practicality. I believe that the two justice principles can give a good starting point for analyzing a moral dilemma but do not go into enough detail to account for many of the situations or dilemmas we currently face, ( I actually feel Kant’s categorical imperative does a better job at encompassing a the multitude of moral dilemmas).

Another question I cannot accurately conclude is in regards to the principle of non-contradiction. Based on my reading, I do not feel that Rawls in any way suggests that rules cannot change over time. In fact, I feel that Rawls may actually advocate the changing of rules if they had in fact been practiced wholeheartedly and were found to not be to the equal advantage of all people. Because societies do in fact change, as well as the needs of individuals and groups within a society, I think it is a fair assumption that what “works” now, may not necessarily suffice in the future. If we can change rules over time does this imply a contradiction that negates universality?