Criterion of Justice
The Basic Idea
Imagine you lived in a society that maximized your happiness. That’s the idea behind utilitarianism, a family of ethical theories that were developed to maximize utility, defined in terms of our well-being.1 Something that is advantageous brings utility to us. Sounds pretty great, right?
However, an important question under utilitarianism is how we distribute resources among society in a way that truly maximizes everyone’s utility.2 Known as distributive justice, this issue is a tricky one to tackle under utilitarianism.
Could the solution be to develop a moral theory alternative to utilitarianism, outlining how society should be structured so that the greatest amount of freedom is given to people, only limited by the concept that any one member’s freedom cannot infringe upon the freedoms of another?3 Could that be an acceptable criterion of justice? According to philosopher John Rawls, the answer is yes.
The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.
– John Rawls, moral and political philosopher, and author of A Theory of Justice
