Utilitarianism comes from the word utility, which means the state of being beneficial to those affected. The Theory of Utilitarianism is the idea that a person must make decisions that create the greatest amount of utility for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist theory because it claims that actions are morally right if they produce the desired consequences, which according to Mill, are pleasures. There are two types of Utilitarianism: Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism examines behavior based on the actions taken while making a decision, while Rule Utilitarianism examines behavior based on the rules and principles that have been made to create the greatest amount of utility for
…show more content…
If a decision is to be truly just and nondiscriminatory then the decider cannot have any idea of their own age, gender, financial status, nationality, or personal beliefs. The Original Position is the hypothetical position that one must start at to make these impartial decisions, disregarding one’s societal situation and personal characteristics. When one is behind the Veil of Ignorance, they are starting their decision making process at the Original Position. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The veil of ignorance deprives the parties of all facts about citizens that are irrelevant to the choice of principles of justice” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “John …show more content…
The criminals from Case 11 who started these Ponzi Schemes did not make their decisions from the original position, they knew that they would benefit from these situations and chose to steal from thousands of people to make a financial profit. Since these decisions were not made from the original position, they cannot be defined as just or fair. Rawls did not focus on the results of unethical decisions, he instead set up hypothetical rules that, if followed, would result in an ethical and fair decision. The intentions of these criminals were to steal money from people and lie to them. One might argue that if the people profiting from these schemes were donating all of the money to the disabled and homeless then it could be permitted according to Rawls’ Difference Principle. According to an analysis of Rawls’ Political Liberalism, written by Ted Vaggalis of Drury College, Vaggalis says that in Rawl’s Political Liberalism, he states the definition of the Liberty Principle. “Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal basic liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value” (Ted Vaggalis’
If a decision is to be truly just and nondiscriminatory then the decider cannot have any idea of their own age, gender, financial status, nationality, or personal beliefs. The Original Position is the hypothetical position that one must start at to make these impartial decisions, disregarding one’s societal situation and personal characteristics. When one is behind the Veil of Ignorance, they are starting their decision making process at the Original Position. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The veil of ignorance deprives the parties of all facts about citizens that are irrelevant to the choice of principles of justice” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “John …show more content…
The criminals from Case 11 who started these Ponzi Schemes did not make their decisions from the original position, they knew that they would benefit from these situations and chose to steal from thousands of people to make a financial profit. Since these decisions were not made from the original position, they cannot be defined as just or fair. Rawls did not focus on the results of unethical decisions, he instead set up hypothetical rules that, if followed, would result in an ethical and fair decision. The intentions of these criminals were to steal money from people and lie to them. One might argue that if the people profiting from these schemes were donating all of the money to the disabled and homeless then it could be permitted according to Rawls’ Difference Principle. According to an analysis of Rawls’ Political Liberalism, written by Ted Vaggalis of Drury College, Vaggalis says that in Rawl’s Political Liberalism, he states the definition of the Liberty Principle. “Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal basic liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value” (Ted Vaggalis’