In Rawlss lingo, we have a highest order interest in the development of our two moral powers, the powers to have a rational plan of life and a sense of justice. Since he also believed that personal and political liberty are needed for personal and moral self-development, he thought that the parties would give priority to individual liberty over other goals, such as increasing economic opportunity or wealth. If libertarianism is true, which of these statements is true? Despite the vigor of his arguments against utilitarianism, however, some critics have contended that Rawls's own theory displays some of the very same features that he criticizes in the utilitarian position. Since the impartial spectator identifies with and experiences the desires of others as if these desires were his own, his function is to organize the desires of all persons into one coherent system of desire (TJ 27). However, I believe that Sandel's analysis raises the metaphysical stakes unnecessarily and that the tension between Rawls's principles and his criticism of utilitarianism can be dissolved without appealing to either of the two theories of the person that Sandel invokes. Thus his official arguments against utilitarianism take the form of arguments purporting to show that it would be rejected by the parties. Nevertheless, there are some genuine commonalities between Rawls's conception of justice and utilitarianism, and these commonalities may be partly responsible for the perception that there is a tension between his endorsement of the former and his criticism of the latter. In this way, we may be led to a monistic account of the good by an argument from the conditions of rational deliberation (TJ 556). Since the parties regard stability as important, they want to avoid principles that people would find unacceptable. The latter view is committed to increasing the population, even at the cost of lowering average utility while the former is not. It says that the parties cannot estimate the probability of being in any particular circumstances. Of course, utilitarians will be unimpressed. % See, for example, section 2 of The Basic Structure as Subject, where he associates the comprehensive interpretation with Sidgwick (PL 2602). Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. endstream <> There has been extensive discussion and disagreement both about the meaning and about the merits of Rawls's claim that utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinctions among persons.
Florida Counties With No Impact Fees 2021, Modern Gourmet Foods Hot Sauce Ingredients, Articles R