Analysis Of John Rawls Moralism And Utilitarianism

Although there are countless moral theories that have been accepted throughout the all of human history, American philosopher John Rawls’ contractarian approach stands out from the rest. Whereas most of the other widely recognized theories, such as Consequentialism or Utilitarianism, focus primarily on the results of the action in question, Rawl’s theory has a different basis. The focus of contractarianism is predominantly on the original position the debating parties were in, which happens to be behind a veil of ignorance. Contractarianism seems as though it would be a perfect moral theory that would solve all the world’s problems, including the problems raised by Harry Gensler toward cultural relativism. However, as the cliché goes—it’s just too good to be true. Contractarianism is based on the concept that “actions are morally right just because they are permitted by rules that free, equal, and rational people would agree to live by, on the condition that others obey these rules as well” (Johnson, ‘Sept’ 2). In more simplistic terms, this theory states that actions are morally permissible if they benefit

If everyone followed proceduralism, and more specifically contractarianism, then it would seem that there would be no discrimination or racism because every culture would have the same rules. Every rule would be established from a veil of ignorance and thus all rules would be those that followed the correct procedure as well as benefitting the majority of the population. Although this seems like a perfect solution, I don’t’ believe it is practical. It is good to have the intention of making decisions without any moral assumptions, but I don’t believe it is possible. We have some subconscious ideas that it would be exceptionally difficult to ignore. Even if some people could successfully make decisions without bias, it would be nearly impossible to have all the world leaders accomplish this