“Classical Utilitarianism,” by John Rawls
This short piece by Rawls makes the point that “utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons.” This is an intriguing statement and warrants discussion. Rawls view of utilitarianism is that the goal for society is the fulfillment of the maximum satisfaction of all its members. Since people attempt to maximize their individual satisfaction, it makes sense that society s goal is analogous. However, the problem is that in the pursuit of the greatest sum of satisfaction in society, some people suffer while others emerge prosperous. The question naturally arises, as Rawls mentioned, is “the violation of the liberty of a few made right by the greater good shared by many?
” Rawls answer to this is yes, and I find myself in agreement. I don t believe there is any system available where everyone can be well-off and good. Utilitarianism cannot be faulted because it does not offer everyone equality of happiness. In fact, utilitarianism, unless absolutely necessary, doesn t even take into account equality. It is only concerned with the maximum net balance. After all, as Rawls argues, if it is all right for one man to maximize his system of desires, it is right for a society to maximize the net balance of satisfaction for its members. With this in mind, Rawls is correct in saying that utilitarianism takes what is good for one to be good for all, and in this way, there IS “no distinction between persons.”