Mill’s Theory of Justice Succeeds Rawls’ Theory of Justice

In "Theory of Justice", John Rawls believes that justice as justice is a better justice theory than John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism. Rawls believes that under the original position assumption, rational individuals will choose to follow his two principles of just as fair. Mill proposed a theory of justice in utilitarianism. Muller believes that justice is emotion. I will summarize the discussion of Mill and Rawls on our sense of justice. Let us explain how Rawls opposes Muller's justice, because Utilitarianism can not severely distinguish people.

In "justice theory", Rawls first stated that "justice is the first virtue of the social system", which means that a good society is a society constructed according to the principle of justice. Rawls argues that existing theory of justice developed in the field of philosophy is not enough. His theory is aimed at formulating the concept of a social basic structure based on social justice - justice as justice.

Justice theory is a theoretical plan by Rawls to develop a philosophy of justice and attempt to establish a political structure aimed at supporting social justice and individual freedom. In response to the mainstream utilitarian theory at the time, Rawls wrote that this theory argues that justice is defined as providing the greatest benefit to most people. Rawls is wrapped in a veil of ignorance and proposes a theoretical person who must design a fair society without having to predict his or her position in society. Mr. Rawl believes that from the objective point of view he will call the original position, the individual will choose the system of justice to provide sufficient conditions for the lowest level people in society. Individuals will do this as he or she may wish to obtain sufficient rewards at such a disadvantage.