09 Harsanyi A Utilitarian Response to Rawls

• Rawls's Theoretical Framework:

  • John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice, contrasts two traditions in moral philosophy: utilitarianism and contractarianism (social contract theory).
  • Rawls introduces the "original position" under the "veil of ignorance," where rational individuals choose principles of justice without knowing their social or economic status.

• Maximin Principle & Difference Principle:

  • Maximin Principle: You should choose the option where the worst possible outcome is the best among all the worst-case scenarios. In other words, focus on minimizing the worst-case harm.
    • Rawls uses the maximin decision rule for individuals in the original position, emphasizing the welfare of the least advantaged in society.
  • The "difference principle" emerges from this, suggesting institutions should maximize the welfare of the worst-off.
  • Difference principle: Inequalities in wealth, power, or resources are acceptable, but only if they help the people who are worst off in society.

• Harsanyi's Objections:

  • Irrationality of the Maximin Principle:

    • In real-world scenarios, the maximin principle often leads to paradoxical and impractical decisions.
    • Example: Preferring highly improbable outcomes (e.g., avoiding air travel due to a slight risk of a plane crash) over significant benefits (e.g., a better job in another city).
    • Rational decisions require balancing risks and rewards using probabilistic and utility-based reasoning, as per Bayesian decision theory.

  • Critique of the Difference Principle:

    • Harsanyi highlights morally questionable outcomes under Rawls’s difference principle:
    • Allocating scarce resources (like medicine or education) to the worst-off, even when this provides minimal benefit compared to helping others.
    • Example: Treating a terminally ill patient over a curable one solely because the former is worse off.

• Issues of Rigidity:

  • Rawls’s framework imposes inflexible prioritization of the least advantaged, disregarding broader societal benefits and individual merit.

• Harsanyi's Alternative:

  • Advocates for the expected-utility maximization principle:
    • Individuals in the original position should choose policies maximizing the average utility, reflecting collective well-being rather than prioritizing extremes.
    • This approach aligns with utilitarian principles and accounts for interpersonal utility comparisons, balancing fairness with practical outcomes.

• Defense Against Rawls's Criticisms:

  • Harsanyi defends the use of probabilities in moral reasoning, countering Rawls's dismissal of subjective probabilities.
  • He explains that interpersonal utility comparisons are essential and feasible, as humans can empathize with others’ preferences and circumstances.

• Broader Implications:

  • Harsanyi emphasizes that utilitarian principles, when correctly interpreted, allow for a balanced moral framework:
    • Recognizes the value of supererogatory (above duty) actions.
    • Avoids the extreme demands of classical utilitarianism or Rawls's rigid rules.

• Practical Recommendations:

  • Harsanyi acknowledges the maximin principle’s utility in specific contexts, like income distribution or taxation, as an approximation tool rather than a moral foundation.

• Final Assessment:

  • While Rawls raises significant moral questions, Harsanyi argues his solutions are flawed and overly simplistic.
  • Utilitarianism offers a more flexible and inclusive approach to justice, avoiding the discriminatory implications of Rawls's theory.

This critique underscores a fundamental philosophical debate: whether morality should prioritize fairness to the least advantaged (Rawls) or maximize collective well-being (utilitarianism).