Quotation:

“Off-hand it hardly seems likely that persons who view themselves as equals, entitled to press their claims, upon one another, would agree to a principle which may require lesser life prospects for some simply for the sake of a greater sum of advantages enjoyed by others. Since each desires to protect his interests, his capacity to advance his conception of the good, no one has a reason to acquiesce in an enduring loss for himself in order to bring about a greater net balance of satisfaction.” page 13

“Thus it seems that the principle of utility is incompatible with the conceptions of social cooperation among equals for mutual advantage. It appears to be inconsistent with the idea of reciprocity implicit in the notion of a well-ordered society.” page 13

Comment: Context: He had just brought up the idea of the principle of utility and when it should be recognized, “…once the principles of justice are thought of as arising from an original agreement in a situation of equality, it is an open question whether the principle of utility would be acknowledged.” These few sentences really grabbed my attention because of the mention of the principle of utility. I remember reading about the principle of utility in Mill’s reading, so when I saw that the author had mentioned it here, I wanted to see how I could relate the two. Mill’s reading made me learn what the principle of utility is, this reading helped me grasp a deeper understanding of it in a way. When Rawl’s mentions it here, I thought of “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” because they are talking about one person enduring loss for himself so that there is greater satisfaction for everybody else. His pain leads to everybody’s happiness, just like the boy from Omelas. The second quote confused me a little bit more than the first, so I picked it because I wanted to dissect it like I did with Mill’s reading. I learned that a “notion” is a conception of or a belief about something. I previously learned that “implicit” means not plainly expressed. I believe he is saying that the principle of utility does apply to the concepts of social cooperation and it does not reciprocate the belief of a well-ordered society. I do agree that the principle of utility does not reciprocate the belief of a well-ordered society, although, I’m still a bit confused on the connections he makes with social cooperation among equals for mutual advantage. 

Question: How/why does the principle of utility not apply to social cooperation? I am confused. 

Post Class Reflection:


My spoken contributions today (bullets, fragments, keywords)		Helping Hands Today (up to 3) – Name & Briefly Describe Contribution to Class (bullets, fragments, keywords)

















-Cripps: what you are born with can’t be justified as deserved, social contract theory, agreements of justice need to be fair
-“Rationality”-?
-Haley: justice as fairness, justice as fairness refers to compromises
-Anna: equity vs. equality

Today’s class discussion altered my thoughts about today’s text(s) in the following ways (link to your QCQ and/or to other ideas):

Today’s class discussion really helped me breakdown the ideas that Rawl’s had presented. I didn’t get to share my quotes today so I didn’t have many contributions, but I was just so focused on what my classmates had to say. To me, the most interesting idea that was brought up was when Anna mentioned the idea of equity vs. equality. Fair does not me the same. We learn about this a lot in my education courses. I had never seen the image of the 2 kids with the boxes and the fence, but it is a perfect example of equity vs. equality. I feel like equality refers to (in the fence case) the same materials, but equity refers to the same opportunities. The kids were given the same size box, which is supposed to mean they’re equal, but they can’t both see over the fence. If you adjusted the size of the boxes, both kids would have an equal opportunity to see over the fence. This is equity, this is fair. All of this was brought up when Haley mentioned justice as fairness, which I thought was very interesting. Justice is not going to be “fair” for everyone unless there has been a compromise or agreement. When someone doesn’t follow the agreement, that is unjust.