Introduction
John Rawls (1921–2002) was a famous political philosopher best known for his theory of justice. In his book A Theory of Justice (1971), he presented a detailed critique of utilitarianism, which had been one of the dominant moral and political theories. Utilitarianism is based on the idea of maximizing happiness or the greatest good for the greatest number. Rawls argued that this approach ignores fairness and individual rights. In this answer, we will explain Rawls’s critique of utilitarianism in simple language.
What is Utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism, developed by thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is a moral theory that says actions and policies should be judged by their consequences. The best action is the one that produces the maximum happiness or pleasure and reduces pain for the greatest number of people.
For example, if a law benefits 90% of the population but harms 10%, utilitarianism may still justify it because overall happiness is maximized.
Rawls’s Critique of Utilitarianism
Rawls disagreed with utilitarianism for several reasons:
1. Ignores Individual Rights
Rawls argued that utilitarianism treats society as one big person. It adds up happiness across people without considering that each individual has separate rights. This means the suffering of some individuals can be justified if it increases the happiness of the majority. For example, punishing an innocent person might increase public happiness, but it violates basic justice.
2. Fails to Respect Fairness
For Rawls, fairness is the most important principle of justice. Utilitarianism, however, allows inequalities if they increase total happiness. Rawls argued that justice should not be sacrificed for utility.
3. Risk of Exploitation
Utilitarianism can justify exploitation of minorities if it benefits the majority. Rawls believed this was unacceptable because every individual has equal worth. Justice requires protecting the basic rights of even the least advantaged.
4. Lack of Stability
If people feel that their rights can be sacrificed for the greater good, they may lose trust in society. Rawls argued that a just system must be stable and acceptable to all citizens. Utilitarianism does not provide this stability.
Rawls’s Alternative: Justice as Fairness
Instead of utilitarianism, Rawls proposed his theory of “justice as fairness.” His approach is based on two principles:
- Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has equal rights to basic freedoms like speech, religion, and political participation.
- Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are allowed only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society.
Rawls developed these principles using the “original position” and “veil of ignorance.” In this thought experiment, people design rules for society without knowing their class, race, gender, or wealth. This ensures fairness because no one can design rules to favor themselves.
Example of Rawls’s Critique
Imagine a policy that takes money from the poorest 10% to give benefits to the richest 90%. Utilitarianism might justify it if the total happiness increases. Rawls would reject it because it violates fairness and harms the least advantaged.
Conclusion
John Rawls’s critique of utilitarianism highlights its weakness in protecting fairness and individual rights. He argued that justice should not be sacrificed for maximizing happiness. Instead, his theory of justice as fairness ensures equal liberty and protection for the least advantaged. Rawls’s ideas have reshaped modern political thought and continue to influence debates on justice and equality.