The following passage is adapted from a journal article.
Topic
John Rawls’s theory of justice: how it responds to utilitarianism and the concept of fairness
Framework
Old / New
Main Point
Rawls offers a new theory of justice that rejects utilitarianism in favor of principles chosen through a fair procedure (“the original position” and “veil of ignorance”), resulting in required guarantees of primary goods for all—even if that means redistribution. (Most Valuable Sentence: The main point is best encapsulated at the end of P4 and start of P5, where the veil of ignorance/original position leads to a just arrangement and the necessity of ensuring everyone receives primary goods.)
P1: Critique of Utilitarianism
Here we see what Rawls is reacting against: utilitarianism, which aims to maximize happiness for the most people, can lead to unfair or even immoral outcomes (like sacrificing one for the many). Rawls worries this allows rights for some to be ignored for group benefit.
P2: The Need for a Fair Procedure
If we reject utilitarianism, how do we decide what’s fair? Rawls thinks that, even without agreement on life’s ultimate aims, everyone can accept a fair *process* for choosing principles. Whatever emerges from this fair process is what counts as just.
P3: The Veil of Ignorance Example
To illustrate “fairness,” Rawls imagines the “veil of ignorance”: if you had to divide something (like cake) but didn’t know which share you’d get, you’d be careful to make it fair for everyone, so you don't risk getting the worst piece.