GPT

Rawls' critique of utilitarianism is central to Justice as Fairness. He rejects utilitarianism because it allows for the sacrifice of individual rights in the name of maximizing overall social welfare. In contrast, Rawls insists that justice must be built on fairness and respect for individuals as moral equals.

Rawls’ Critique of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, especially in its classical form (Bentham, Mill), holds that justice consists in maximizing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This means that if sacrificing the well-being or rights of a minority leads to a greater overall utility, it could be considered just. Rawls finds this unacceptable because:

1. The Problem of Aggregation – Utilitarianism treats society as a single entity where individual interests can be summed up, rather than as a collection of distinct persons with their own rights and moral worth. This allows for the oppression of some if it results in greater overall happiness.

2. The Tyranny of the Majority – Under utilitarian principles, it would be possible to justify unjust social structures if they benefit the majority (e.g., slavery or severe economic inequality might be permissible if they increased total happiness).

3. The Lack of Respect for the Distinctness of Persons – Rawls argues that justice should not treat people as mere vessels for happiness. Each individual has intrinsic worth, and justice must respect each person's moral autonomy rather than treating them as means to an end.

Fairness and Justice as Moral Equality

Rawls' alternative is grounded in fairness, which he defines as ensuring that justice does not allow for systemic advantages or disadvantages based on arbitrary contingencies like birth, class, or luck. His concept of fairness is based on two key ideas:

1. The Original Position & Veil of Ignorance – If rational individuals were designing society without knowing their own place in it (rich or poor, strong or weak, privileged or oppressed), they would not choose utilitarianism because they might end up in the sacrificed minority. Instead, they would choose principles that protect individual rights and ensure fairness.

2. Priority of Basic Liberties – Unlike utilitarianism, which balances liberties against overall happiness, Rawls asserts that certain fundamental freedoms (speech, political participation, thought, etc.) must be guaranteed equally to all.

3. Justice as Reciprocity, Not Mere Welfare Maximization – Rawls views society as a fair system of cooperation, where everyone benefits under principles that they would willingly accept if they were in any social position.

In short, Rawls believes that fairness and justice require treating each individual as an end in themselves, with inviolable rights that cannot be overridden by aggregate social welfare calculations. This makes his theory deeply Kantian—focusing on justice as respecting human dignity—rather than consequentialist like utilitarianism.