Miller - Blog Post 4

 

In chapter one of A Theory of Justice, Rawls presents a contrast between utilitarianism and his own conception of justice as fairness. To Rawls, the very essence of justice dictates that the pursuit of the greater good can never justify the loss of freedom for some. In Rawls’ conception of a just society, basic liberties can never be infringed. He explains that “each member of society is thought to have an inviolability founded on justice or, as some say, on natural right, which even the welfare of every one else cannot override” (24-25). Rawls rationalizes this claim by stating that justice as fairness explains the “priority of justice” because it is a result of the principles chosen under the “original position.”

Rawls contrasts this with utilitarianism, which is defined by the idea that society and its institutions should promote the “greatest net balance of satisfaction” (20). Under utilitarianism, when justice and natural rights come in conflict with greater social utility, the latter is prioritized. This does not necessarily mean that sentiments of justice are completely disregarded under utilitarianism. Describing utilitarianism, Rawls writes that “under the conditions of civilized society there is great social utility in following them [precepts of justice] for the most part and in permitting violations only under exceptional circumstances” (25). He furthers that although it is often characterized as such, utilitarianism cannot be described as promoting individualism because it prioritizes the good of society over all else. Rawls summarizes this contrast between utilitarianism and his own contract doctrine concisely when he writes that “while the contract doctrine accepts our convictions about the priority of justice as on the whole sound, utilitarianism seeks to account for them as a socially useful illusion” (25).

It is interesting to consider this contrast in the context of COVID-19. During the ongoing pandemic, public health measures designed to promote the greater good (health) have often come into conflict with individual freedoms. For example, it can be argued that contact tracing apps infringe upon the natural right of privacy, just as stay-at-home orders infringe upon freedom of mobility. Yet many, including myself, support the curtailment of freedoms for the larger societal good. COVID-19 public health measures seem to be a precise depiction of what Rawls is criticizing when he describes the priority of justice under utilitarianism as a “socially useful illusion” that can be violated under “exceptional circumstances.” It seems probable that Rawls would oppose the public health measures because they inexcusably restrict freedoms. The absolutism of Rawls on freedom and justice, while potentially compelling in the abstract, may be hard to stomach in reality.