E-LOGOS 2016, 23(2):37-41 | DOI: 10.18267/j.e-logos.435

Rawls versus utilitarianism: the subset objection

Terence Rajivan Edward
University of Manchester, United Kingdom

Keywords: original position, utilitarianism, separateness of persons, subset objection.

This paper presents an objection to John Rawls's use of the original position method to argue against implementing utilitarian rules. The use of this method is pointless because a small subset of the premises Rawls relies on can be used to infer the same conclusion.

Prepublished online: December 15, 2016; Published: December 1, 2016  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Edward, T.R. (2016). Rawls versus utilitarianism: the subset objection. E-LOGOS, 23(2), 37-41. doi: 10.18267/j.e-logos.435
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Goldman, H.S. 1980. Rawls and Utilitarianism. In G. Blocker and E. Smith (eds.), John Rawls' Theory of Social Justice. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.
    2. Hart, H.L.A. 1973. Rawls on Liberty and its Priority. The University of Chicago Law Review 40: 534-555. Go to original source...
    3. Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
    4. Rawls, J. 1999 (revised edition). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press. Go to original source...
    5. Richardson, H. 2005. John Rawls (1921-2002). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed on 2nd July 2014 from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/
    6. Scheffler, S. 2001. Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...

    Return to the content