Download pdf
The Influences of Utilitarianism on Rawls’ Theory of Justice
- 1 Queen Mary University of London
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Concerning political philosophy during the second half of the 20th century, Rawl’s theory of justice stands out, particularly in its critique of utilitarianism. The currency of utilitarianism deeply influences the emergence of Rawls’ veil of ignorance and two principles of justice. Classical utilitarianism provides Rawls with a theoretical framework, informing him with the importance of predominant criteria to govern a society. While the fact remains that the impairment of individual rights, which is inherited in classical utilitarianism for maximizing the collective welfare, has long been denounced by liberals. To address this, Rawls introduces the social contract theory, arguing for the priority of the right over the ‘good’. Whereas the prevalent of average utilitarianism brought Rawls to notice with shortcomings among the traditional version of social contract. By applying the veil of ignorance as an approach of justification, Rawls refutes two premises of average utilitarianism, which are the law of insufficient reason and the analogous preferences of social members. This lays a foundation for his two principles of justice, the greatest equal liberty principle and the difference principle. Justice as fairness incorporates the merits of utilitarianism, providing liberalism with a constructive force, concurrently elucidating the defects of utilitarianism. Accordingly, Rawls’ argument effectively challenges utilitarianism, coupled with failings of utilitarians to deal persuasive counterattacks, as a consequence, bringing a shift of the dominant in political philosophy from utilitarianism towards liberalism.
Keywords
John Rawls, utilitarianism, veil of ignorance, justice
[1]. Rawls, J.B. (2009). On Justice (Revised Edition)[M]. He H.H., He B.G., Liao S.B., Trans. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
[2]. Clark, B., Gintis, H. (1978). Rawlsian Justice and Economic Systems[J]. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 7(4):302-325.
[3]. Chen, L. (2021). The Seed of ‘Oringinal Position’: A Critique on Rawls’ “Outline of a Decision Procedure for ethics.”[J]. Journal of Suzhou University of Science and Technology (Social Science), 38(03):6-13.
[4]. Sandel, M.J. (1982). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice[M]. London: Cambridge University Press.
[5]. Zhang, W.T. (2018). The Limits of Rights in Utilitarianism: an Examination Centered around Rawls’ Critiques[J]. Qinghai Social Sciences, 04:89-96.
[6]. Rawls, J.B. (2013). “Justice as Fairness(1958)”, Collected Papers[M]. Chen X.S., etc., Trans. Beijing: Jilin Publishing Group Co., Ltd.
[7]. Xu, Z.Q., Zheng, X.F. (2020). The Issue of Preference in the Scope of Rawls’ Theory of Justice[J]. Tianjin Social Sciences, 04:64-69.
[8]. Nagel, T. (1973). Rawls on Justice[J]. The Philosophical Review, 82(2):220-234.
[9]. Zhang, J.L. (2019). Distributive Justice: Revisiting Rawls’ Critiques of Mill[J]. Morality and Civilization, 05:126-133.
[10]. Yao, D.Z. (2010). A Critique of Critiques: Utilitarianism’s Refutation of John Rawls[J]. Fudan Journal (Social Sciences), 03:120-126.
[11]. Su, H.C. (2013). Economic Justice and Liberty: the Social Philosophy in John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism[M]. London and New York: Routledge.
[12]. Mill, J.S. (2019). On Liberty[M]. Meng, F.L., Trans. Shanghai: Shanghai Joint Publishing House.
[13]. Gauthier, D. (2003). “Justice and Natural Endowment”, John Rawls: Critical Assignments of Leading Political Philosophers[M]. Kukathas, C., Edited. London and New York: Routledge, Vol. I.
Cite this article
Sun,R. (2024). The Influences of Utilitarianism on Rawls’ Theory of Justice. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,39,271-275.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Social Psychology and Humanity Studies
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).