Comparing John Rawls And John Stuart Mill's Theory Of Justice

In Rawls’ Theory of Justice, he thinks of Justice as Fairness. Rawls’ thinks the distribution or redistribution of goods is fair, in my opinion, this would depend upon the situation. It’s also stated in Justice as Fairness that “Justice should not be based on Luck of Birth”. Another exert in his text states that the “Veil of Ignorance guarantees that justice will be achieved by the least well-off”. Although some of the things Rawl’s speaks of in his Theory of Justice could possibly be achieved, I beg to differ. I think that Mill’s Theory of utilitarianism would be more achievable than Rawlls’ Theory.
I believe that there is a huge difference between justice and fairness. Rawls explains the distribution of goods as making sure that everyone …show more content…
This will not guarantee that justice would be achieved for the less fortunate, the original position states that everyone must come to a collective agreement to make sure that the “least well-off” will inherit equal shares of everything. I believe this is impossible because people will not agree for many reasons. The “veil of ignorance” produces an atmosphere in which the individuals are “unaware about their social status, gender, age, ethnicity, abilities, level of intelligence, level of education so on”. Also, the veil of ignorance is to influence people agree not to dwell on things of the past, or to forget about what was good to them, and to do away with any plans that they may have foreseen for their futures. Even if this was the situation people would not agree because they will not allow themselves to let go of their beliefs or what they know of their own attributes. Also, people would question themselves about how they would benefit from such a commitment, I don’t think anyone would agree to some of these conditions, especially if we take a close look at what is happening in the world today, trust would be at the top of the