To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp

Question

To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against. The dominant approach in pre-Rawls political philosophy was utilitarianism, which emphasized maximizing the fulfillment of people's preferences. At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible- what else should we do but try to achieve the most satisfaction possible for the greatest number of people? -but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many."

If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. He asserts that even if people do not agree on the aim of the good life, they can accept a fair procedure for settling what the principles of justice should be. This is key to Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just.

But what is a fair procedure? Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair. By denying the child information that would bias the result, a fair outcome can be achieved.

Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His thought experiment features a situation, which he calls the original position, in which people are self-interested but do not know their own station in life, abilities, tastes, or even gender. Under the limits of this ignorance, individuals motivated by self-interest endeavor to arrive at a solution in which they will not lose, because nobody loses. The result will be a just arrangement.

Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life, want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be.  Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods.  Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.   1 
 1. The author's primary purpose in the passage is to

(A) show why a once-dominant theory was abandoned
(B) describe the novel way in which a theory addresses a problem
(C) sketch the historical development of a celebrated theory
(D) debate the pros and cons of a complex theory
(E) argue for the truth of a controversial theory.

2 
 2. According to the passage, Rawls uses which one of the following devices to explain his theory?

(A) a thought experiment
(B) a process of elimination
(C) an empirical study of social institutions
(D) a deduction from a few basic principles
(E) a consideration of the meaning of words

3 
 3. With which one of the following statements would both Rawls and the author of the passage be most likely to agree?

(A) There are situations in which it is permissible to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.
(B) Unless individuals set aside their own self-interest, they cannot make fair judgments about the distribution of goods.
(C) If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others.
(D) Most people agree about which of the primary goods is the most valuable.
(E) It is fair to sacrifice the individual's interests if doing so will maximize the satisfaction of the majority.

4 
 4. The author's stance toward Rawls's theory is most accurately described as one of

(A) scholarly neutrality with respect both to its objectives and its development
(B) disdain for its pretensions camouflaged by declarations of respect for its author
(C) sympathy with its recommendations tempered with skepticism about its cogency
(D) enthusiasm for its aims mingled with doubts about its practicality
(E) admiration for its ingenuity coupled with misgivings about some of its implications

5 
 5. The purpose of the question in lines 6-8 ( Highlighted ) is to

(A) point out an implausible feature of utilitarianism
(B) characterize utilitarianism as internally contradictory
(C) establish that utilitarianism must be true
(D) suggest the intuitive appeal of utilitarianism
(E) inquire into ways of supplementing utilitarianism

6 
 6. Which one of the following would, if true, most call into question the claim in lines 49-51 ( Highlighted ) of the passage?

(A) Most people value the fulfillment of their own preferences over the fulfillment of the preferences of strangers.
(B) It is impossible in practice for people to be ignorant of their stations in life, abilities, and tastes.
(C) Some people would be willing to risk a complete loss of one primary good for the chance of obtaining an enormous amount of another primary good.
(D) Few people believe that they would be satisfied with only a minimum amount of primary goods.
(E) People tend to overestimate the resources available for distribution and to underestimate their own needs.

generis · Accepted Answer

Skywalker18  , Question 3 is hard because the author sneaks in a somewhat inconsistent
disapproval of Rawls' theory near the end of the passage.
By that time, we are probably inclined to believe that the author supports Rawls.
 
3) "With which ... statement would  both  Rawls and  the author of the passage  be most likely to agree?"

Answer (C) does not work. The author does not like one consequence of Rawls's theory: redistribution required by certain cases.

• According to Rawls, "everyone should get a least a minimum amount of primary goods."
About this very sentence, the author comments, 
 Unfortunately , this is an inherently redistributionist idea..."

(I can see from your notes that you caught the sentence. I would bet that your mind, at that point
primed to believe that the author would support Rawls, did not process the "unfortunately.")

• The author does  not  agree with redistribution of goods—even of water 
and even if, say, Ananya will die without it and Saanvi has more than enough water.

Redistribution means that if Ananya does not have any water; and if Saanvi has more than enough water;
then water must be redistributed from Saanvi to Ananya. Ananya will die without water.

Taking some water from Saanyi and giving it to Ananya is, according to the author, 
"Unfortunately, ... an inherently redistributionist idea,   at the expense of others if necessary."
-- Well, yes. So that Ananya can live, some water that Saanyi does not need is given to Ananya. 
-- The water is redistributed.
For this author, taking water from Saanyi is unfortunate and at Saanyi's expense. 
"At someone's expense" suggests  disadvantaging or victimizing someone,  namely, Saanyi.
(Ananya's expense does not matter. Saanyi owned the water first.)

The author does not agree that "if an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others."

Answer (C) does not work. 
Now what to do?
 
• One tactic is to go back and look at text we might instinctively avoid or overlook.
One hint in (A) comes from the word "majority." 
Utilitarians believe in the greatest good for the greatest number (the majority in that situation).

•  The mob example.  Utilitarians would have to endorse
the execution of an innocent person to appease a mob.

Rawls rejects this position.  The author  likewise calls endorsing the execution  "incredible" —impossible to believe.
In this situation, the innocent person should not be executed.

Answer A is our best bet:
(A) There are  situations  in which it is  permissible  to treat the fulfillment of  one person's preferences  as  more important than  the fulfillment  of the majority's preferences.

The innocent person should not be executed.  
Both Rawls and the author reject the utilitarian argument in favor of execution. Preferences? 
The innocent person's preference is to live—to avoid execution. 
The mob's preference is to execute the innocent person.

In this situation, Rawls and the author would both agree that  the mob's preferences 
should not be fulfilled  and  are not as important as  the preferences of  one  innocent  person .
That agreement supports answer (A).

I hope that analysis helps.

cfc26 · Answer

Hi Rikita,

Let me know if this makes sense. I chose Answer A for this question because it has the strongest evidence that both the author and Rawls agree on the idea of treating one person's preferences as more important than total. This is alluded to in the following quote:

"Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many.""

Option C feels like a good choice because of the last paragraph, but the author subtly indicates that they do not agree with this statement. Their use of the word "unfortunately" in the below quote from the last paragraph indicates that the author would prefer not to make society pay for the goods of other individuals, while Rawls indicates that he agrees with that concept.

"Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life, want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth. ....  Unfortunately , this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings."

Let me know if this makes sense.

CFC

Debashis Roy · Answer

Q.4...Why not (A)?..
Throughout the passage the author has passively supported the Rawls theoory which can be termed as Scholarly neutrality....Even the doubt about some of its implications as mentioned in option E is presented as Rawls view and not the author's himself.

ritika50 · Answer

Hello , 
For Q3,Can someone explain why 'c 'is wrong as in the last para the author and rawl do agree on providing the necessary good ?

regards

cfc26 · Answer

Hi there,

I chose answer E because there were several adjectives used in the passage that indicated the author was not neutral. Some of those sentences (with the opinionated word) are below:

"Rawls offers an  ingenious  answer."

"Rawls again has a  clever  approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance."

"Rawls thinks that people, regardless of their plan of life, want certain "primary goods." ....  Unfortunately , this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings."

The first two are praising his intelligence, but the use of the word "Unfortunately" in the last sentence indicates that the author is unhappy about at least one implication of Rawl's theory. That is why I chose E, because it has both positive and negative attitudes towards this theory.

I hope this makes sense, please let me know if you have any other questions.

CFC

Skywalker18 · Answer

All correct except question 3 in 9 mins including almost 5 mins to read

Para 1- utilitarianism -- flaw
Para 2- Rawls's theory: Whatever arises from a fair procedure is just
Para 3- veil of ignorance- cake experiment
Para 4- Why it works
Para 5- primary goods- at least a minimum amount; redistribution of primary goods

1) The author's primary purpose in the passage is to 
(B) describe the novel way in which a theory addresses a problem- Correct; Rawls's theory of justice addresses the problem in an ingenious way

2) According to the passage, Rawls uses which one of the following devices to explain his theory? 
(A) a thought experiment- Correct

Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance. Suppose five children have to divide a cake among themselves. One child cuts the cake but does not know who will get which shares. The child is likely to divide the cake into equal shares to avoid the possibility of receiving the smallest share, an arrangement that the others will also admit to be fair.

4) The author's stance toward Rawls's theory is most accurately described as one of 
(E) admiration for its ingenuity coupled with misgivings about some of its implications- Correct;

If we reject utilitarianism and its view about the aim of the good life, how can we know what justice requires? Rawls offers an ingenious answer. 
Rawls again has a clever approach, beginning with his famous veil of ignorance.
Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings.

3) With which one of the following statements would both Rawls and the author of the passage be most likely to agree?

(A) There are situations in which it is permissible to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.
(B) Unless individuals set aside their own self-interest, they cannot make fair judgments about the distribution of goods.
(C) If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others.
(D) Most people agree about which of the primary goods is the most valuable.
(E) It is fair to sacrifice the individual's interests if doing so will maximize the satisfaction of the majority.

In question 3, I chose option C but the OA is A. Please help.

AjiteshArun  ,  GMATNinja  ,  MagooshExpert  ,  GMATGuruNY  ,  VeritasPrepBrian  ,  MartyTargetTestPrep  ,  DmitryFarber  ,  VeritasKarishma  ,  generis  , other experts

KarishmaB · Answer

For question no 3, we get that the answer is (A) from 1st paragraph:

To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp what he was reacting against ... utilitarianism... At first sight, utilitarianism seems plausible but the theory has some odd consequences. Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution.  (Words such as "odd", "incredibly" show that the AUTHOR is against this fallout of Utilitarianism)  Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many."  (So RAWL was against this fallout of Utilitarianism too)

(A) There are situations in which it is permissible to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.
So both Rawl and the author agree on (A)

(C) is incorrect as per the last paragraph.

Rawls thinks that people want certain "primary goods." These include rights and liberties, ... Hence, any individual in the original position will agree that everyone should get at least a minimum amount of these primary goods.  (RAWL thinks the everyone should get at least a min amount of these goods)  Unfortunately, this is an inherently redistributionist idea, since the primary goods are not natural properties of human beings. If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.  (AUTHOR says "unfortunately this is redistributionist..." He does not agree with this)

(C) If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others.

Hence they do not agree on (C)

GDT · Answer

MentorTutoring

In Q3, B is incorrect because it says that unless self-interest is kept aside, we can't be fair but in the passage we are given an example of a child wherein he may well have self-interest but lacks knowledge of whether he'll be getting cake and so behaves in a fair manner. Is this reasoning correct?

Thanks in advance

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  GDT , and thank you for tagging me. Since I have never read the passage, jumping straight to question 3 took me 3:16, but I did answer correctly. The following is my rationale:

Notice the toned-down language, a feature of many correct answers. We do not get any absolutes, but instead we get  situations  and  permissible . It may not be the case that the author would argue that, in general,  one person's preferences   more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences , but recall the mob-execution scene at the end of paragraph 1. Such a scene, with a mob acting against  an innocent person  for its own  satisfaction , is  exactly  the type of situation for an exception to be made. The last line of the paragraph makes it clear that the author and Rawls agree on this point,  accordingly  rejecting the utilitarian view, as it is outlined. This answer is one that cannot be refuted.  Green light.

Notice the absolute, straight-arrow condition and outcome here, namely that  individuals   must   set aside their own self-interest , or else... Such definitive language is typically an overstatement of the case, and this usage is no different. Not only do we have the cake example in paragraphs 3-4 that explicitly goes against this claim, but keep in mind, too, that for this answer to be correct, we would need to see such a linear connection appear in the passage. That is, even without the cake, we could not speculate that this  single  condition would be required to produce the outcome of making fair judgments. Overstatement is overstatement, plain and simple.  Red light.

This is a distortion of the last line of the passage:  If someone lacks a primary good, it must be provided, at the expense of others if necessary.  You have to back up to the definition of a  primary good  at the beginning of the paragraph to assess the claim. The second sentence defines "primary goods" as including  rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, and income and wealth.  Notice that  a good  in general or the pluralized  goods  are not mentioned. A close reading pulls this one apart.  Red light.

Now we are getting into opinions, about which we have no information. Furthermore, the superlative  most  at the end of the answer choice stands out as a red flag. The passage defines "primary goods" in the last paragraph, as mentioned above. It does  not  draw a distinction among them.  Red light.

This is the very position that both the author and Rawls  reject  at the end of paragraph 1. On this point the two agree. Notice the final line:  Rawls accordingly complains  about this aspect of the utilitarian view. This answer choice represents a reversal of what we want.  Red light.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew

auradediligodo · Answer

Hi everyone,
Got all correct except for the last question in 11:10 minutes, including 5:30 minutes to read.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1

In this paragraph we are presented with Rawl and his idea of justice. But before introducing it, the author explains that Rawl was opposed to utilitarianism as it promoted unfair situations such as the killing of innocents because the majority of the population would be happy about it.

Purpose:  To explain the concept against which Rawl bases his theory.

P2

In this paragraph the author presents Rawl's idea of justice in contrast to the utilitarian idea, that is everything that comes from a fair procedure is fair.
 Note : the author defines Rawl's idea  ingenious

Purpose:  To present Rawl's idea of justice in contraposition with the utilitarian idea

P3

Here the author tries to explain Rawl's idea of a fair procedure (note: the author describes Rawl as  clever ). Rawl uses the example of the child who has to cut a cake but does not know which piece of cake he will get.

Purpose:  to explain Rawl's idea of a fair procedure

P4

In this paragraph the author explains more the metaphor of the veil of ignorance. The idea is that when someone is ignorant of their circumstances they will act in a fair way.

Purpose:  to explain more the metaphor of the veil of ignorance

P5

In the last paragraph the author is in stark contrast with Rawl. While Rawl thinks that everyone should get a minimum amount of primary goods, the author thinks that this is a redistributionist idea and that in order to get such primary goods other people can be damaged.

Purpose:   to discard an aspect of Rawl's theory

Main point

To evaluate Rawl's theory of justice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The author's primary purpose in the passage is to

Pre-thinking

Main point question

To evaluate Rawl's theory of justice.

(A) show why a once-dominant theory was abandoned
 We don0t know whether the utilitarian theory was abandoned or not. OUT

(B)   describe the novel way in which a theory addresses a problem
 Correct and broad enough

(C) sketch the historical development of a celebrated theory
 Historical developments are not mentioned

(D) debate the pros and cons of a complex theory
 no debate

(E) argue for the truth of a controversial theory.
 the theory is not controversial per the author

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) According to the passage, Rawls uses which one of the following devices to explain his theory?

Pre-thinking

Detail question

From the second last paragraph:  Rawls generalizes the point of this example of the veil of ignorance. His  thought experiment  features a situation,

(A)   a thought experiment
(B) a process of elimination
(C) an empirical study of social institutions
(D) a deduction from a few basic principles
(E) a consideration of the meaning of words

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) With which one of the following statements would both Rawls and the author of the passage be most likely to agree?

Pre-thinking

Inference question

We need to evaluate the option choices

(A) There are situations in which it is permissible to treat the fulfillment of one person's preferences as more important than the fulfillment of the majority's preferences.
 We can infer this option from the following lines from P1:

Suppose executing an innocent person will appease a mob, and that doing so will therefore increase total satisfaction. Incredibly, a utilitarian would have to endorse the execution. Rawls accordingly complains that, in the utilitarian view, there is no reason "why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many."

Note a couple of things here: the author is upset by the fact that according to the utilitarian view some innocent people might die. So we can infer that the author prefers Rawl's view on the topic to the utilitarian view. Hence they both agree on this point

(B) Unless individuals set aside their own self-interest, they cannot make fair judgments about the distribution of goods.
 too extreme

(C) If an individual lacks a good, society must sometimes provide that good, even if this means taking it from others.
 In the last paragraph we can see how the author's point of view and Rawl's differ here

(D) Most people agree about which of the primary goods is the most valuable.
 too extreme because of  most

(E) It is fair to sacrifice the individual's interests if doing so will maximize the satisfaction of the majority.
 both Rawl and the author don't agree here. Opposite

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) The author's stance toward Rawls's theory is most accurately described as one of

Pre-thinking

Author's attitude question

We have some key words to consider here:  clever  and  ingenious  from P3 and P2 and  unfortunately  from the last paragraph. Hence we can say that the author appreciates some aspects of Rawl's theory while she discards other aspects.

(A) scholarly neutrality with respect both to its objectives and its development
 the author is not neutral

(B) disdain for its pretensions camouflaged by declarations of respect for its author
 too extreme

(C) sympathy with its recommendations tempered with skepticism about its cogency
 sympathy here is a bit weak. The author uses words such as clever and ingenious that are quite strong

(D) enthusiasm for its aims mingled with doubts about its practicality
 Again, enthusiasm is not in line with the words used by the author

(E)   admiration for its ingenuity coupled with misgivings about some of its implications
 Admiration here for sure works better with the words used by the author

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a great day to be alive!

Kartikeya40 · Answer

Hello Experts,

IN Q6, can someone please explain why option E is incorrect? If people tend to overestimate the resources available for distribution, it might be the case that they are overestimating the minimum requirement of Primary Goods. And in the same Question, for Option C - My understanding is that even though some people are willing to risk it all for another primary good, it still doesn't weaken that people require minium goods.

GMATNinja · Answer

Let's make that highlighted sentence super concrete. Let's imagine that a fellow named Tim is in the "original position." That means Tim is self-interested, and he doesn't know anything about his station in life.

The highlighted sentence is saying Tim should believe that everyone deserves to get a minimum amount of primary goods. Let's say the only good in the world is apples. And there are five people in the world. Tim believes that there are 20 apples and 20 oranges in the world and each person deserves to get at least one apple and at least one orange.

We're looking for an answer that says, "actually, maybe Tim doesn't think everyone deserves at least one apple!"

Start with (E):
 
If this is true, does it mean that Tim no longer believes everyone deserves an apple? Not necessarily. If Tim overestimated the apple supply, that might there are actually 15 apples, not 20. And maybe Tim thought he needed one apple, but he actually needs two.

His fundamental belief that everyone deserves a minimum number of apples and oranges hasn't changed. He's maybe just changed what the minimum value is. But everyone is still getting apples and oranges in this scenario. So (E) doesn't really do the job.

But now look at (C):
 
Well, if this is true, then some people might be willing to forgo apples altogether to get loads of oranges. If someone would be happy with 0 apples in order to get, say, 19 oranges, Tim's in big big trouble!

Suddenly, the framework of everyone needing at least a certain number of apples and oranges no longer works, because there's someone who doesn't want apples at all. And by sacrificing apples, this person may also be dominating the market in oranges, thus depriving others of their daily allotment of citrus. (Hasn't this person heard of scurvy?)

All to say, if (C) is true, it has the potential to mess up the framework of everyone needing a minimum amount of apples and oranges, because someone might not need any apples, so (C) is our answer.

I hope that clears things up!

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

To understand John Rawls's theory of justice, one first needs to grasp

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards