(Return to main path)

There is something very important about these two principles. Keep in mind that in formulating his theory, his main opponent is utilitarianism. Rawls believes that utilitarianism "does not take seriously the distinction between persons." [Theory, section #5] It was unacceptable to him for that reason.

Rawls believes that in principle classical utilitarianism is concerned only with maximizing the total amount of happiness or welfare. The distribution of happiness or welfare doesn't matter. If we change a rule or policy so that many people are made happier even though a few people are made miserable, that's OK as long as the total amount of happiness is maximized.

In other words, we can take from person A in order to give to persons B and C as long as total happiness is maximized. Rawls wants to make this impossible. He wants to prevent us from sacrificing A for the sake of B and C. That is what he thinks of as respecting the distinction between persons.

As a result, he departs from utilitarianism in at least three ways, all of which are designed to prevent one person's good from being traded off in order to increase another person's good.