This essay aims towards providing arguments for why is libertarianism is better then utilitarianism and Rawlsianism. First of all we need to look into the very brief definitions of the three schools of thought so that as we proceed further we are in a better position to analyze distinctions more effectively in line with our topic.
In short libertarians are of the view the liberty is the basic right of a human being , the basic right over his body, the right to do what ever he likes with what ever he likes without initiating force or fraud. As far as utilitarianism are concerned, they think that an action of an individual is judged by what utility the society around him derives out of his action rather then the utility the person derives. Moreover Rawlsianism states that everything , be it liberty or the derived utility be divided equally among all unless the unequal distribution is to the advantage of the poor
First of all we need to look why libertarianism is better the Rawlsianism. Rawl’s theory resides on two features of human personality that are envy and timidity. His theory is based on the assumption that people are aversive. However in real life, not everyone is risk aversive, but, libertarians are risk preferring and today in this corporate world we see that higher risks mean higher profits. Moreover utilitarianism are neutral in risk taking that leaves them indecisive about their plans and steps and this is why they cannot be successful in this on going game of risk in corporate world today.
Moreover I believe that Rawl’s book was successful just because it was limited just to academia and because it was just limited to academia only teachers and most educated people were exposed to his theory. In my opinion these are the only people in which his theories are popular. Otherwise, as a whole, his theories are not for the basic man, they t target a common man but they are not helpful as they are not accessible to him. Therefore his theories are not that popular among the masses.
Moreover , as far as utilitarianism is concerned, they believe that happiness can be measured through the use of calculus in quantative measures. However in libertarian point of view, happiness is different for every individual in every aspect and one cant measure happiness in any sense. Yes this is true, how can one measure in quantities units of another person? What would be the unit in which it will be measured? How can it be really determined if the other person is really happy or not?
Another criticism for Rawlsianism put forward by the libertarians is that if one class himself the follower of Rawlsianism school of thought, then how come is he rich? This means all the people belonging to this school of thought and rich are not in line with the teaching of the school. Why didn’t they distribute all their wealth among the poor in favored, why do they still posses what they have? In libertarian point of view they are practicing what they say, it is a mans will whatever he wants to do, how much he wants to charity and help others, it is all based on an individuals will. At least here we can prove that libertarians stick to the preaching of their school. They might not charity a lot but they only do what they reach unlike Rawl’s followers.