Rawls
- This is a preview of the essay.
To view the full text you must login!
For centuries, philosophers have focused on the fundamental ethical issue of our obligation to other persons. This debate proves to have multiple arguments and many differences of opinion. Three of the greatest philosophers who attempted to define our commitments towards each other were John Rawls, Michael J. Sandel, and David Gauthier. In Rawls' A Theory of Justice, he defines the original position, which does not allow men to take their natural endowments into consideration when deciding justice for society. Rawls argues that this "veil of ignorance" is crucial because it allows for fair discussion in which everyone is an equal player. In Sandel's Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Sandel develops his criticism of liberalism, stating that each person is a sovereign judge of what is personally beneficial. Thirdly, Gauthier's Morals by Agreement argues that utility is a measure of considered preference and that people will choose what they desire most. These ideals between the three philosophers appear to oppose one another and in no way would Rawls agree with Sandel or Gauthier. It is also clear from further research that Gauthier's theory of utility is perhaps the better of the arguments...