Rawlsian Maximin Principle and Utilitarianism - Essay Example

? Rawlsian Maximin Principle and Utilitarianism Rawlsian Maximin Principle and Utilitarianism Critique of theUtilitarianism establishes an intricate scrutiny of the social justice, which is developed by John Rawls in his first book, "A Theory of Justice.” There are weaknesses of the Utilitarianism that depict the need for an alternative theory, whereby in numerous phases of argument the test for sufficiency of the theory that Rawls discusses demonstrates its superiority to the Utilitarianism. Accounts of social justice introduce transitions to Rawls’s second book "Political Liberalism”, whereby accounts of Utilitarianism demerits are revised. Nevertheless, the paper will seeks to elaborate the initial critique of utilitarianism and Rawlsian Maximin Principle in order to establish theory, which is more plausible. Rawls’s argument that we should maximin instead of maximize leads to a fascinating standoff, whereby the argument for maximin appeared not compelling, but it was straight additive maximization of utilitarian in a way that revealed the possible function associated with morality that people are expected to maximize. In fact, according to Rawls, the utilitarianism is not straight based on taking maximandum, which refers to the things that are to be maximized that is utility instead of the primary social goods. Moreover, the idea of maximizing the key social goods is not appealing, since it fails to pursue the maximization of utility. Therefore, the espousal of the ideal legitimacy in political Liberalism does not have an effect on the conclusions and arguments that are developed to reinforce the ideal with respect to justice as fairness in utilitarianism and Rawlsian theories (Arneson, 2000). There is another problem with the utilitarianism, which is associated with the tenuous association with liberalism, whereby in prominent situations of aggregate goods of numerous, people outweigh the few individuals. Moreover, utilitarianism appears to be committed to the majority over the minority, and it seems to be unfair or violating the fundamental rights and liberties. Therefore, utilitarianism retort is unfair since the mere handovers from outdated and pernicious moral conversions. On the other hand, Rawls’s arguments are in the first part, whereby he focuses on the conflicts between utilitarianism and people’s beliefs concerning justice and fairness. In fact, he provides diagnosis, which is unflattering in order to appeal to utilitarianism. Therefore, utilitarianism may seem to be appealing by taking over the model of decision-making that individuals make relating to their lives. However, there is a significant difficulty associated with implementing the model in a society with people suffering from sacrifice, whereby they are denied the chance to obtain the benefits. In this case, the official arguments, in the parties in the original state prefer the Rawlsian Maximin Principle, by turning the choice between rules related to making the decision under uncertain circumstance of maximizing expected utility instead of maximin. The formal argument of the Rawls’s assertion is supported by the psychological arguments related to parties in the original state that prefers the principles. In fact, ideas of psychological arguments related to Rawls’s principles do not have limitations of the strains of commitment, like utilitarianism. Moreover, Rawls maintains that people growing in a society governed by principles Rawls’s principles, they would end up valuing the principles and complying with them. Rawls’s principles are concerned with the worst off, whereby the society is committed to the well being of the well off. However, this is not the case with the utilitarianism, whereby it is easier to have the allegiance to a society, which is governed Rawls’s principles, compared to the society governed by utilitarianism. Making a comparison between the Rawls principles with the maximin rule and utilitarianism, there is a chance of utilitarianism given restrictions of liberty of some to produce a significant overall utility. Therefore, the worst results under utilitarianism are considered slavery or servitude, while Rawls argued that utilitarianism sacrificed the interests of the minority in order to produce an aggregate utility in the life of the worst off, which is not desirable. On the other hand, the lexical priority of the principle of the greatest equal, where liberty eliminates the possibility of ensuring that people fundamental liberty has not been sacrificed for maximizing the overall utility. Nevertheless, a difference of the principle equates to maximin principle, which expects the inequalities in wealth, income and authority to work for benefiting the worst off, since the lexical priority is focused on the principle of greatest equal liberty and principle of fair equality of opportunity. Utilitarianism is subject to structurally complex rejection by Rawls’s principles, whereby the principles embraces the perception of justice, a general conception that should be varied at all times and the distinctive conception that is varies under modern social situations. Therefore, focusing on the general conception of people holding the principal institutions of the society, there should be a focus on making the worst off representative as a well off as possible. In this case, the benefits are evaluated in terms of primary social goods that can be distributed by the society, whereby a rational person would seek more than fewer of whatever he or she wants. In fact, the Rawls’s principle differs from utilitarianism in aspects of maximin instead of maximize, and basis of interpersonal comparison for social justice, which is a primary social good, not utility. On the other had the utilitarian argue that the good judgment agreement is right, which is uncontroversial with crucial determinants of the things that are supposed to be done in a deceptive logic. Numerous rights are problematic in a situation of being commenced indistinctly and with a high generalization level; hence there are sensible repercussions for the policies of accepting abstract rights with high uncertainty. For example, the freedom of expression, where almost everyone is free appears to be unanimity that dissolves, when the rights to free speech are supposed to include a host of complex situations. Moreover, this does not follow the way to proceed, but it appears that it embraces utilitarianism, which is forced to regard uncluttered and obvious moral truths as contingent and uncertain matters, which are misleading. Rawls’s argument related to the theme of responsibility is connected to the primary goods standards, which fails to succeed in standards justification. Therefore, there is a need to accept that the idea theory of social justice is plausible, since Rawls’s focuses on the responsibility between the society and individual that yields the results whereby individual behave in a faulty self-damaging way. They behave as if they are alone on the society, bearing no costs, whereby some individuals choose is a substantial way to focus on pursuing the end other, instead of their well-being. This results to the individual wellbeing in a deficit, whereby they suffer in claims for compensation by the society. Rawls’s principle is considered plausible since it encourages the acceptance of personal responsibility, which is perceived to be entirely compatible with the rejection of acceptable standards of interpersonal comparison. Therefore, there is a chance of connecting the personal responsibility to utility-based approach, while basing it upon distributive justice that requires an individual to acquire a fair share of opportunities for utility over the course of their lives. Moreover, the principles offer an approximation, whereby people get the opportunities to choose between the good, an obtaining it, in order to develop a sketch of the principle in to the way that it can be implemented. In conclusion, the paper has discussed issues related to both Rawlsian Maximin Principle and Utilitarianism, in order to determine the theory, which is plausible. The paper has established Rawlsian Maximin Principle to be more reasonable than utilitarianism due to several reasons, which are identified through an analysis of arguments in these theories. References Arneson, R. (2000). Rawls versus Utilitarianism in the Light of Political Liberalism. The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls. Retrieved on 28 October 2012 from < http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/rawlsut.pdf> Read More