CAPITALISM'S ACHILLES HEEL Dirty Money and How to

Spreading Prosperity 363
others. ... [N]o one has a reason to acquiesce in an enduring loss for
himself in order to bring about a greater net balance of satisfaction. . . .
[A] rational man would not accept a basic structure merely because it
maximized the algebraic sum of advantages irrespective of its permanent
effects on his own basic rights and interests. Thus it seems that the principle
of utility is incompatible with the conception of social cooperation
among equals for mutual advantage. ... These principles rule out justifying
institutions on the grounds that the hardships of some are offset
by a greater good in the aggregate. 8
This is a stunning concept, challenging utilitarianism and therefore the
capitalism–utilitarianism union at its heart. Rawls is saying (and these are
my words, not his) that if humankind could start again, we would never
adopt the system we have in place now. We would not position utility ahead
of justice and would not accept selective sacrifice, ends justifying means, and
summing group advantages at the expense of individual rights. Bentham’s
system simply does not accord with what rational people would choose
among their first principles of association.
There is no suggestion here that businesses should not be maximizing
profits, operating efficiently, and competing. The point is much simpler:
Capitalism should not place these aims ahead of justice in its institutions
and transactions. Justice must be a prior condition, and then the maximizing
instinct can more effectively lead to shared prosperity.
Rawls’ book goes on for more than 500 pages laying out his theory of
“justice as fairness,” articulating his argument for “the priority of justice over
efficiency and the priority of liberty over social and economic advantages.” 9
He makes it clear that, while his original position and veil of ignorance are
hypothetical conditions, he does seek “to derive a conception of a just basic
structure, . . . that can serve as a standard for appraising institutions and for
guiding the overall direction of social change.” 10 “From the standpoint of
the theory of justice, the most important natural duty is . . . to support and
to further just institutions. This duty has two parts: First, we are to comply
with and to do our share in just institutions when they exist and apply to us;
and second, we are to assist in the establishment of just arrangements when
they do not exist . . .” 11
A Theory of Justice is intended primarily for “well-ordered societies”
where there is a “public conception of justice.” 12 Rawls sought to expand