A Review of: “A Theory of Justice” “正义论” by John Rawls 约翰·罗尔斯
First published 1972 Part 1 - Theory 第一编 理论
Chapter 1 – Justice as Fairness
第一章正义即公平
Section 5 – Classical Utilitarianism
第5节 - 古典的功利主义
Rawls points out that there are many forms of utilitarianism/功利主义. He makes it very clear that his aim is to develop a theory of justice, a contract view/契约观点, one which represents an alternative to utilitarian theories generally.
The main idea of utilitarianism, claims Rawls, is that society is rightly ordered, and therefore just, when it’s major institutions are arranged so as to achieve the greatest net balance of satisfaction, when taken together with all the individuals belonging to it.
Rawls does acknowledge that a utilitarian viewpoint is very attractive in that it appears to be the most rational conception of justice. The main idea of this theory is that if the overall arrangement of the main institutions of society obtains the maximum net difference to the total satisfaction of all members of society, then that society is an orderly society, and therefore a just society/正义的社会.
He sets out the utilitarian steps in the following way:
each man in realizing his own interest is certainly free to balance his own losses against his own gains.
we may impose a sacrifice on ourselves now for the sake of a greater advantage later.
a person quite properly acts when others are not affected, to achieve his own greatest good, to advance his rational ends as far as possible.
Rawls asks the question: why shouldn’t a society act on precisely the same principle applied to the group and therefore regard that which is rational for one man as being right for an association of men?
Just as an individual balances present and future gains against present and future losses, so a society may balance satisfactions and dissatisfactions between different individuals. This type of thinking results in a society, believes Rawls, which is properly arranged when it’s institutions maximize the net balance of satisfaction for the welfare of society/社会的福利
This utilitarian idea is made all the more attractive claims Rawls when consideration is given to the two main concepts of ethics: “the right” and “the good”. The structure of an ethical theory is largely determined he believes by how well it defines and connects these two basic notions. However, such definitions can lead us, implies Rawls, into what could be described as a “rationality trap”. It is natural to think says Rawls that rationality is maximizing something or rather and, therefore, with respect to ethics and morals, it must be maximizing the good. This thought process tempts us along the path to suppose that things should be arranged so as to lead to the most good possible.
Rawls maintains that it is vital to keep in mind that in such a teleological theory/目的理论 (which looks to the ends or results) “the good” is to be defined independently from “the right”. He points out that this means two things:
The theory accounts for our considered judgments as to which things are good, our judgments of value, as a separate class of judgments intuitively distinguishable by common sense; and
The theory enables the judgment of “the goodness of things” without referring to “what is right”.
Rawls relies on the following argument:
Where pleasure is said to be the sole good, then presumably pleasures can be recognized and ranked in value by criteria that do not presuppose any standards of right, or what we would normally think of as such. Whereas if the distribution of goods is also counted as a good, perhaps a higher order one, and the theory directs us to produce the most good, including the good of distribution among others, we no longer have a teleological view in the classical sense. The problem of distribution has lost its connection to “the concept of a right”, and so the theory lacks a truly independent definition of “the good”.
Rawls declares that if “the good” is defined as “pleasure”, we have hedonism; if it is defined as “happiness”, then we have you eudaimonism. He understands the principle of utility in its classical form as defining the good as the satisfaction of desire or, more precisely, the satisfaction of rational desire.
It is impossible to deny, argues Rawls, the initial plausibility and attractiveness of utilitarianism, since social cooperation is achieved and settled by whatever in the current circumstances will result in the greatest sum of satisfaction, in terms of the rational desires of individuals.
For Rawls, utilitarianism fails precisely because it is unable to make a serious distinction between individuals. He refers to what is understood to be the “impartial spectator”/公正的旁观者........
References:
A Review of: “A Theory of Justice” “正义论” by John Rawls 约翰·罗尔斯 Oxford University Press, 1971
正义论 A Theory of Justice 约翰·罗尔斯
外 国 伦 理 学 名 著 译 丛 - 罗 国 杰 郑 ⽂ 林 主 缩 - 正 义 论
何 怀 ⼯ 美 〕 约 翰 • 罗 尔 斯 普 - 宏 何 包 钢 摩 申 ⽩
B-E.
#openaccess #Rawls #justice
Информация по комментариям в разработке