Final answer:
Rawls's conception of justice is fundamentally different from utilitarianism. His theory focuses on ensuring individual liberties and assisting the least advantaged in society without explicitly seeking to maximize total societal utility, employing the notion of the 'veil of ignorance' to determine just principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
The claim that Rawls's position is similar to utilitarianism is false. American philosopher John Rawls proposed a conception of justice rooted in egalitarian principles that diverges significantly from utilitarianism. While utilitarianism, as articulated by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, asserts that the rightness of actions is determined by their utility—maximizing happiness or benefit for the greatest number—Rawls's theory emphasizes the protection of individual liberties and improving the welfare of the least advantaged without necessarily maximizing overall utility. Rawls introduces the veil of ignorance concept, placing hypothetical rational beings in a situation where they must choose principles of justice without knowledge of their own place in society, thereby ensuring impartiality. The principles he lays out are the liberty principle, which mandates equal basic rights for all, and the difference principle, which allows for social and economic inequalities only if they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and are attached to positions of fair equality of opportunity.