(Return to main path )

Let me defend Rawls for a moment. Ann has suggested that the parties in the Original Position might choose utilitarianism.

I think that Rawls would answer that they would not choose utilitarianism precisely because it allows the good of some to be traded off for the good of others (more precisely, to maximize some aggregate good). Since the parties in the Original Position don't know what position they wll be in, they don't know whether their good will be traded off. They would avoid utilitarianism in order to protect themselves. The difference principle guarantees them a floor below which they will not fall, so to speak. Instead of being exploited for the benefit of others, it guarantees that the best off cannot profit unless the least well off profit as well.