PrepTest 80, Section 4, Question 4
The following passage is adapted from a journal article.
To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of people's preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible—what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people?—but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many."
If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just.
But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved.
Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement.
Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life, want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.
The following passage is adapted from a journal article.
To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of people's preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible—what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people?—but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many."
If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just.
But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved.
Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement.
Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life, want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.
The following passage is adapted from a journal article.
To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of people's preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible—what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people?—but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many."
If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just.
But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved.
Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement.
Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life, want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.
The following passage is adapted from a journal article.
To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of people's preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible—what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people?—but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many."
If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just.
But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved.
Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement.
Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life, want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods. Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.
With which one of the following statements would both Rawls and the author of the passage be most likely to agree?
There are situations in which it is permissible to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.
Unless individuals set aside their own self-interest, they cannot make fair judgments about the distribution of goods.
If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others.
Most people agree about which of the primary goods is the most valuable.
It is fair to sacrifice the individual's interests if doing so will maximize the satisfaction of the majority.
Explanations
The question asks us to interpret both the author's and Rawls's points of view.
They're largely aligned throughout the passage, namely regarding utilitarianism, so I'm predicting our answer will have something to do with utilitarianism's shortcomings.
Let's take a look.
Yes, this works. Evidence for this answer comes about throughout the passage, but I see the best support for it in the final three sentences of the first paragraph. There, the author sets up and knocks down one of the principle shortcomings of utilitarianism—occasional mob rule—and introduces Rawls's similar critiques.
Nah. We don't have good support that either the author or Rawls believes this.
Nope. I dislike this answer choice for multiple reasons. First, I have evidence that Rawls might believe this, at best. Second, must creates a very high bar. The simple fact that Rawls may not totally believe this disqualifies this answer choice based on must. Lastly, we have no proof the author thinks this either, only that it appears to be a downstream result of Rawls's theory.
No way. Similar to B, we have absolutely no evidence that either party believes this.
Nope. This is a utilitarian ideal, something the author and Rawls would both disagree with.
0 Comments