Final answer:
John Rawls' theory of justice is distinct from utilitarianism as it focuses on fairness and justice, allowing inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged and are attached to fair opportunity, unlike utilitarianism which is outcome-focused.
Step-by-step explanation:
It's false that Rawls claims his position is similar to utilitarianism. John Rawls' theory of justice is fundamentally distinct from utilitarianism. His approach, described in A Theory of Justice, is centered around the concept of fairness and incorporates two main principles. The first principle demands equal basic liberties for all, while the second, known as the difference principle, allows social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged and are attached to positions of opportunity open to all.
Rawls' idea of the original position and the veil of ignorance is designed to ensure that individuals making decisions in society do so without knowledge of their own position, thereby ensuring fairness. This approach differs drastically from utilitarian principles, which prioritize the greatest good for the greatest number at the risk of justifying morally questionable actions.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that assesses the morality of actions based on outcomes, unlike Rawls' focus on justice and fairness irrespective of outcomes. Rawls is more aligned with Kant and egalitarian ideals, seeking a balanced and equitable society, unlike the utility maximization of utilitarianism.