공리주의는 형이상학적 실체에 의존하지 않고 우리가 삶 속에서 추구하고자 하는 덕목들에 관심을 가지며, 어떤 행위나 정책들이 좋은 결과를 가져올 수 있는지, 없는 지 확인할 것을 요구한다. 이와 같은 공리주의의 특성은 구체적 생활 속에서 필요한 복지에 관심을 갖게 하고 그 결과에 따라 평가하게 한다. 그러나 복지 증진이라는 명목 속에는 소수자의 권리나 인권의 희생이 따르게 된다. 롤즈는 이러한 점에 주목하여 공리주의의 문제점들을 지적하고 그것에 대한 대안으로 전통적 계약론에 입각하여 자신이 정립한 ‘공정으로서의 정의’를 제시한다. 그는 일반적인 인간이 생활하는 조건을 정의의 여건으로 수용하고, 그들에게 무지의 베일이라는 조건을 적용함으로서 그들을 공정한 조건을 가진 원초적 입장의 당사자들로 수용하고자 한다. 이 원초적 입장의 당사자들은 개별적인 특수한 사정은 모르고 일반적인 사항만을 가지는 가상적 상황에 처하게 된다. 그들은 합리적이고 이기적이지만 다른 사람의 사정에 대해서는 무관심하다. 이 사람들이 받아들이게 될 정의관의 전제조건들과 분배문제를 고려하기 위해서 받아들이는 순수 절차적 정의를 바탕으로 롤즈는 정의의 두 원칙을 제시한다. 그것은 자유를 우선적으로 하고, 균등한 기회균등을 제공하며, 최소 수혜자를 위한 차등의 원칙을 그 특성으로 한다. 그는 정의의 두 원칙을 정당화하기 위해서 최소 극대화의 원칙을 주장한다. 그것은 원초적 입장의 당사자들에게는 최대 극대화 원칙보다 최소 극대화 원칙이 더 적합한 조건이라는 점을 들고 있다. 이렇게 제시된 정의론은 수많은 논점들을 제공했다. 그럼에도 불구하고 그것은 공리주의가 가지는 전체의 이익을 위해 소수자의 자유가 배제되고 무시되는 점을 극복하였고, 효용이나 유용성을 바탕으로 하는 공리주의적 관점을 인간의 기본권리에 주목하도록 하였다고 평가 할 수 있을 것이다.
The object of this paper is to show how Rawls developed his theory as an alternative to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has been one of the predominant systematic theories for a long time since its birth. It appeals us since it was founded on the nature of the mental state of human beings. In the democratic society, especially, its power of persuasion has been more powerful than any others. Thus, it has been placed to be a main ideology in the democratic and capitalistic political structure of the West. It must not be overlooked, however, that the rights of minority, including the basic human rights, can be neglected by the support of profits of majority. J. Rawls pointed out this issue and criticized the utilitarianism. It was a different point of view from the other critics that had been stated about utilitarianism. What the other critics had done was not an alternative but simple critics to utilitarianism. Pointing out the problems of utilitarianism, Rawls generalized the traditional theory of the social contract based on the intuition as an alternative, and put the theory on the higher order of abstraction. In this way Rawls' theory of justice developed. While the utilitarians only concerned about the more profits of majority, his theory was aimed to improve human welfare on the basis of equally given rights to every human being. For this purpose, he set up the concept of his ‘original position’. This position basically asserts the equal rights for all. He suggested the concept of ‘veil of ignorance’ to explain this position. All men have the equal rights at this position. J. Rawls proposed the assumptions for the men in the original position as follows: Men are rational. But they do not have the conception of the good. And they are mutually disinterested. However, they are presumed to have the sense of justice, and this presumption was accepted as public knowledge among them. If these people construct the original position, establish a constitution and enact the laws by the principles of justice of their own choice, Rawls assumed, the society would become a well-ordered one. According to Rawls’ assumptions, the principles of justice of those who have chosen the ‘original position’ will realize the principles of equal basic liberty with priority. The basic human liberty is allowed to be restricted only for its own sake. That is, the less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system of liberty shared by all. And the less equal freedom must be acceptable to those with less liberty. These principles, nonetheless, cannot be realized without economic and social resources. Even though Rawls admits that these are inequalities, however, he permits these only if they aim to the realization of the equal liberty. From this perspective, he is concerned of the interests of the least advantaged. This is the ‘second principle of justice’ or the ‘different principles’. Social and economic inequalities must be arranged for the least advantaged to obtain the greatest benefit, for it is mutually prosperous for both the least advantaged and the most advantaged. Rawls’ arguments have raised a numerous issues and critics since the beginning of its presentation. Modern utilitarians and others have been against his proposal, which disturbed him. Some of them, criticizing Rawls as a libertarian, are in the position of communitarian. R. Nozick, while classified as a libertarian, has been famous for the critic against Rawls’ theory. Nevertheless, even those who are against Rawls’ proposal agree to the view that he opened a new road to the ethic-political philosophy. Therefore, J. Rawls’ theory of justice, as an alternative to utilitarianism can be evaluated that it has changed the subject of study from that of utilitarians to another, that is, from profits to personal rights of human beings.