Rawls’s official argument is that the parties in the original position would prefer his principles of justice to utilitarianism. Since the decision by the parties in the original position is guaranteed to be fair, Rawls maintains, the fact that they favor his principles shows that those are the principles of justice.
Today we discussed Rawls’s case for thinking that the parties would choose his principles. Next time, we will talk about his reasons for thinking they would reject utilitarianism. In the end, the two days come to pretty much the same thing: his case for thinking the parties would take his principles is that they would prefer them to utilitarianism.
The core of Rawls’s case is that the parties will prefer his principles over utilitarianism if they look at the worst possible outcome under each set of rules. That is, they should compare social systems by looking at the worst possible lives under them and choose the system with the best worst outcome. This is the essence of the so-called maximin rule.
To make his argument work, he needs to explain why the parties should give that much weight to the worst possible outcome. Why shouldn’t they take all of the other outcomes into account too? After all, we do not normally make decisions based solely on comparisons between the worst possibilities of the alternative courses of action we are faced with.
Rawls maintains there are three features of the decision to be made by the parties in the original position that make it rational for them to focus on the worst possible outcome.
I said we would talk about the point about probabilities next time.
I also said that I did not know how we could determine whether the second point is true. Rawls himself says that he will supply the argument for this conclusion in a subsequent part of his book. Since it is very long and relies on detailed psychological theories, we do not have the time to assess it.
Rawls’s best argument, in my opinion, is that the parties know the people they represent would find the worst possible outcomes under utilitarianism unacceptable but that they would not find the worst possible outcomes under Rawls’s principles unacceptable.
The point is pretty simple. Utilitarianism could allow almost anything: slavery, medical experiments, summary executions, you name it. If it could be needed to bring about the greatest overall good, utilitarianism would have to be for it. So the worst possible outcome under utilitarianism is pretty icky. By contrast, the worst possible outcome under Rawls’s principles is pretty nice: extensive protection of personal liberty, equal opportunity, and a significant guaranteed income.
Given that the choice is between utilitarianism and Rawls’s principles, why run the risk of being made a slave, a subject of medical experiments, or the rest? That’s a pretty good question, in my opinion.
We will, obviously, return to this next time. One thing to think about is why utilitarianism would ever allow slavery or the other horrible stuff. What does life have to be like for that to be an option for utilitarianism?
There was a handout for this class: 23.RawlsTwoPrinciples.handout.pdf