Introduction

The objections of Nozick and Rawls to utilitarian theories of justice facilitate an interesting discussion concerning principles of justice. Nozicks objections, though forceful, do not present a reasonable objection to utilitarian notions of justice. His critique of utilitarianism relies on questionable assumptions with regards to free market arrangements. On the other hand, Rawls argument against "a classical form" of utilitarianism is largely persuasive. However, even so, he fails to consider declining marginal utility and the implications that the principle has in a utilitarian arrangement. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the above-mentioned claims by describing reasonable responses of a utilitarian to the objections of Nozick and Rawls.

In order to evaluate the critiques of Nozick and Rawls concerning utilitarian theories of justice, we must understand the general ideas of utilitarianism. Hence, I describe the two basic types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism in the next section. Because, my defense of utilitarianism against the objections of Nozick and Rawls favor rule utilitarianism, I spend significantly more time illuminating the principles of rule utilitarianism than act utilitarianism. My analysis of rule utilitarianism is based largely on the work of John Stuart Mill.

Utilitarian Theories of Justice

Utilitarian theories of justice are rooted in the idea that just acts or principles are those that lead to the greatest amount of utility (or human happiness). Utilitarians maintain that because the natural aim of all rational individuals is to maximize their own happiness, institutions affecting groups humans should be guided by principles aimed at producing the most happiness across the greatest number of people. Just arrangements, to an utilitarian, are those that facilitate the greatest amount of happiness given the possibilities.

There are two general types of ulititarians: act utilitarians and rule utilitarians. Act utilitarians maintain that an act is just only if it produces the greatest amount of happiness given the alternatives. Justice results from choosing acts that maximize the worlds total happiness. The amount of happiness of any possible act can be measured by subtracting the amount of unhappiness produced by the act from the total amount of happiness gained by persons affected by the act. Hence, those persons who derive large amounts of happiness from an act have more influence in determining "just" acts than does someone who gains or loses small amounts of pleasure from an act. The alternative that has the best odds for maximizing happiness, and produces the highest amount of total happiness is said to constitute the just act given the particular situation. Within the framework of act utilitarianism, the number of people experiencing happiness is subordinate to the overall amount of happiness produced by an act. The primary concern of an act utilitarian is not the equal distribution of happiness; but rather the total of happiness produced by an act. Thus, according the act utilitarian, the principal responsibility of any person is to act in ways that lead to the greatest amount of overall happiness.

In contrast, rule utilitarians argue that justice should be equated with highly significant moral rights related to social utility. Justice involves the protection of important moral rights held legitimately by all people. J.S. Mill, the most noted rule utilitarian, maintained that an act is just if it conforms to a set of moral rights that most nearly approximates universally held moral rights when compared with any alternative set of rights. To Mill, a moral right is "to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of." Moral rights are imperative for an existence in which one is capable of experiencing happiness. They permit persons to "go about their business" in ways that are most likely to lead to their happiness; an idea which strikes at the heart of utility. In Utilitarianism, Mill generalized commonly held beliefs as exemplary of the universal moral rights "which forbid mankind to hurt one another"161 and are thus imperative to utility; namely, that others have a right to get what they deserve (be it positive or negative) and persons have "the right to equality of treatment" (hence, according to the latter precept, everyone, unless they forfeit the right, has an equal right to happiness). A set of rules that represents the closest possibility to satisfying such moral rights, in Mills mind, exemplifies justice. Expressed directly, dead persons or individuals who are in constant fear of debilitating persecution are prevented from exercising their natural right to pursue their own happiness. In order for people to function (and thus pursue their own happiness) they must be able to exercise their natural right to pursue their own happiness without prohibiting others from doing the same; unless, of course, dire circumstances lead one to forfeit his natural right to pursue happiness in cases such as an health-related emergency. However, even with the latter provision, the final aim of any person is to maximize their own happiness. Justice provides enforcement of the rights in which people need to survive and function in ways that they deem most appropriate. In essence, justice consists of those moral rules "which concern the essentials of well-being"; and well being, according rule utilitarians, facilitates utility.

Nozicks Critique of Utilitarianism and The Utilitarian Response

The central criticism of Robert Nozick to Utilitarianism, or any patterned, end state arrangement for that matter, was based on the restrictions that Utilitarian theories of justice place on individuals right to free choices concerning property that they are "entitled" to control. Nozick argued that patterned, end-state arrangements, like that of Utilitarianism, forced unnatural patterns on human interaction. The utilitarian pattern of distributing social goods based on happiness prevented people from exercising their natural rights to control their holdings gained through legitimate means. Even if the social goods within a state where distributed initially in such a way that happiness was maximized, the initial distribution of social goods would eventually break down without constant inference from a governing body. Eventually the good and bad decisions made by individuals concerning the goods distributed in accordance with utilitarianism would destroy the order of the initial distribution of social goods based on utility. Unless constantly manipulated by the state, the free consent of individuals to do with their property as they think best would malign the established utilitarian pattern.

At face value, this appears like a reasonable objection to utilitarian arrangements. Utilitarians, after all, impose restrictions on the "natural rights" of persons to control their property. However, following deeper analysis, one realizes that utilitarians may respond to Nozick by indicating that utilitarianism provides a more reasonable arrangement than the Entitlement Theory given the unequal genetic or economic state that persons are born into. Utilitarian notions of justice (more specifically rule utilitarianism) recognizes that the greatest overall happiness results from considerations of individuals "well-being". Utilitarian arrangement provides some compensation for individuals who were born into situations that limit their ability to reasonably control property or situations that limit their opportunities for creating a reasonable existence. A utilitarian may respond to Nozicks criticism of the restrictions that utilitarianism places on "natural" forces by questioning the faith that Nozick has in a free market arrangement. Even if everyone held exactly what they were historically entitled to (a highly unlikely scheme), would a free market arrangement produce results more just than the utilitarians basic regard for persons well-being? Instead of overlooking or downplaying the inherited rifts furthered by a free-market system, utilitarian systems, in keeping with their concern to facilitate an "equal claim to all the means of happiness except insofar as the inevitable conditions of human life and the general interest in which that of every individual is included set limits to the maxim", would render at least some assistance to individuals born into situations not conducive to a reasonable existence. Utilitarians find no recognition of the inherent unfairness of a free-market arrangement in Nozicks Entitlement Theory. In formulating the Entitlement Theory, Nozick did not adequately consider the role of background in acquiring and managing property. Utilitarians could also respond to Nozicks objections concerning the utilitarian restriction of personal liberty, by arguing that utilitarian theories of justice allow for individuals to pursue what makes them happy so long as such pursuit does not offend others moral rights to do the same. The term moral rights of others in a utilitarian arrangement recognizes the general interest of those born into less fortunate circumstances and provides some assistance to provide for their happiness. In this sense, utilitarians can argue that they present a more reasonable concept of personal liberty than does Nozick. The individual rights of all to realize their happiness are tempered with room to consider the happiness of individuals born into less favorable positions. A utilitarian arrangement, while recognizing the rights of all people to pursue their interests within reasonable perimeters, considers the happiness of all individuals, according to the amount of satisfaction that they derive from a particular scheme of distributing social goods. Hence, it is logical to assume that in a utilitarian justice system structures would likely exist to provide at least meager benefits to the disadvantaged. The unhappiness caused by disregarding all of the disadvantaged of a society (in least in most the modern nation-states) would have a significant influence in a utilitarian society. Instead of treating justly only those able to compete in a free market system (as in the case of Nozicks Entitlement theory), utilitarian arrangements in modern nation states would consider the needs of the disadvantaged. Thus, Nozicks claim of "continuous interference with peoples lives" in a utilitarian system exaggerated the restrictions placed on individuals in a utilitarian system of justice and overstated the legitimacy of individuals rights to "personal liberty".

Along more general lines, utilitarians could also respond to Nozicks criticism by citing that their central aim is to maximize the happiness of individuals; an aim very much in line with human nature. Unlike Nozicks Entitlement Theory, utilitarians rationally consider individuals happiness within a larger system not always conducive to just opportunities for happiness. Thus, given that each persons happiness is considered, greater human happiness across broader spectrums of people would result from utilitarian systems of justice when compared to systems based on the Entitlement Theory.

The last response that a utilitarians could make to Nozicks objections would be to point out that the context required for the Entitlement Theory to be realized is unrealistic given the worlds history of distributing social goods. In order for Nozicks Entitlement Theory to be realized, societies would either have to dismiss the historical injustices concerning the distribution of social goods and "start from scratch", or redistribute social goods so that relatives of those who experienced injustices in the past are compensated. Persons whose ancestors experienced injustice are to be compensated until they acquire what they would have had if the injustice had not occurred. In the state of Virginia this would constitute an almost endless search for relatives of Native Americans, slaves, and others who have experienced injustice and require incredibly complicated calculations has to how much each relative should receive given the injustices experienced by their ancestors. Furthermore, how does one calculate the amount that affluent people should give? Utilitarians could point out the above-mentioned complications to Nozick and ask, "What are fair alternatives to patterned arrangements such as Utilitarianism?"

Rawls' Critique of Utilitarianism and the Utilitarian Response

John Rawls objection to utilitarian theories of justice centered around his perception that utilitarian theories failed to reasonably take into account "the distinction between persons." According to Rawls, justice within a utilitarian state is based on the hypothetical ideal that a "perfectly rational individual" considers what will lead to the greatest amount of happiness in a society and chooses the alternative most conducive to that end. The rational individual, according to Rawls, measures the "intensity of desires" and "assigns them their appropriate weight" in determining which alternative is most likely to maximize happiness. The rational individual then alters the social system in accordance with these desires to produce the greatest possible happiness. Rawls claimed that within such a utilitarian system, the rights of individuals may be sacrificed for the happiness of the whole. His criticism of utilitarianism centered around the following sentiment:

Thus there is no reason in principle why the greater gains of some should not compensate for the lesser losses of others; or more importantly, why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many.

In my perception, utilitarians have few legitimate responses (in fact, I only perceive one) to the persuasive objections of Rawls. Rawls claim concerning the possible sacrifice of individual rights within a utilitarian arrangement is reasonable given the final outcome intended by utilitarianism. One can see, even following a close reading of Mills regard for the "well-being" of persons in Utilitarianism, that it is possible that utilitarianism, grounded in the common sense ideal of maximizing the total amount of happiness of a society, justifies sacrificing the individual rights of some for the benefit of the whole. The primary concern of utilitarian systems is not to protect the natural rights of each individual; instead the highest aim is to maximize the total amount of happiness in a society. The rationality of Rawls claims concerning the possibility within utilitarian arrangements for sacrificing individual rights leaves little room for retort on the part of a utilitarian. A utilitarian may cite Mills notion of individuals moral rights, but even then, the utilitarian is faced with recognizing the final outcome of regard for such moral rights, namely utility. Furthermore, Mill is vague as how far utilitarianism will go to uphold individuals moral rights within the context of the greater good. Even after a close reading of Mill, one is unsure how much utilitarian theories of justice facilitate individuals "equal right to happiness." Utilitarianism, in and of itself, does not regard the rights of individuals above the happiness of the whole. Thus, Rawls presented a solid objection to utilitarian theories of justice when he reasoned that the rights of individuals may be sacrificed for the sake of the "greater good."

Nevertheless, utilitarians may respond to Rawls critique by pointing out his omission of the principle of declining marginal utility and demonstrating the important role that declining marginal utility plays in utilitarian theories of justice. Though Rawls omission of declining marginal utility may have resulted from his consideration of a branch of utilitarianism that did not employ declining marginal utility (Rawls did note the diversity of utilitarianism), the principle provides a utilitarian with some support to argue against the claims of Rawls.

The principal of declining marginal utility refers to the declining value of social goods (i.e. money) following accumulation. In practical terms, this principle concerns the general precept that two thousand dollars produces a lot more utility for someone who makes ten thousand dollars a year than it does for someone who makes thirty million dollars a year. Two thousand dollars produces more happiness to the former than it does the latter. Applying declining marginal utility to Rawls analysis leads one to question whether utilitarian arrangements have the potential to neglect individual rights that Rawls claims. The happiness of disadvantaged and downtrodden persons assumes a greater role in determining just policies when "the rational individual" considers the principle of declining marginal utility. Indeed, equal opportunities and/or social services produce much more happiness to someone of a disadvantaged background than someone with countless opportunities for success and/or wealth. The disadvantaged, having less access to money and other social goods/services, have a greater need for such goods and services; hence, distributing social goods to the disadvantaged probably produces more happiness for them than the amount of unhappiness following moderate retribution on the part of the advantaged. Just societies within a utilitarian arrangement that considers declining marginal utility, thus, regard the happiness of one disadvantaged person more than the happiness of one affluent person when weighing alternatives for distributing social goods to maximize happiness.

However, the preceding response of a utilitarian is not without problems. If the number of disadvantaged or minority persons within a utilitarian system is small enough, then their extreme unhappiness resulting from a social policy will not outweigh even small amounts of utility experienced by the rest of the group. No matter the strength of their desires, the "greater good" will prevail. In such cases, individuals rights, even though considered within the context of declining marginal utility, may be sacrificed for greater utility.

Summary

Utilitarians have numerous reasonable responses against Nozicks objections to Utilitarianism. In order to refute the objections of Nozick, a Utilitarian may point to the inherent injustice associated with the unhindered operation of markets. Utilitarian theories of justice estimate the happiness of all individuals, thus are likely to institute more reasonable policies (particularly from the standpoint of the disadvantaged) than the free market proposed in Nozicks Entitlement Theory. Furthermore, Utilitiarians defend the natural right of persons to pursue happiness within certain necessary perimeters. However, the objections of Rawls present a more substantial problem for utilitarians. Rawls criticism of the hegemony possible within a utilitarian system is, for the most part, reasonable. However, Rawls failed to consider the principle of declining marginal utility in his criticism and thus is open to a utilitarian counter-point that utilitarianism considers the needs of the disadvantaged more so than Rawls realized.