Utilitarian models of the state, subordinating individual rights to a calculus of maximum

social welfare, have long been a de facto orthodoxy among political philosophers. Yet they
run counter to the basic liberal concept of fairness, which deeply characterizes the intuitive
American response to injustice, and provide succor to those who espouse radical solutions to
social problems—socialism on the one hand and the new conservatism on the other. Those
comfortable with these dogmas should take note of the philosophical revival of the once
discarded notion of the social contract. This idea receives its fullest exposition in John
Rawls's "A Theory of Justice."

Rather than adopt Rousseau's vision of naturalman—a picture almost impossible to conjure
up in the face of more recent scientific knowledge—the new contractarians postulate a group
of rational men and women gathered for the purpose of elucidating a concept of justice which
will guide their affairs. They further assume that these people make their decision behind a
veil of ignorance; that is, they are totally ignorant for now of their position in society—their
race, their gender, their place in the social order. Yet the principles at which they arrive will
bind them once the veil is lifted.

Starting from this original position, it can be logically demonstrated that rational beings
would arrive at a decision ensuring the maximum possible justice and liberty for even the
meanest member of society. Thus, freedom of speech, for example, would be inviolable,
whereas the utilitarian could easily justify its abridgment for a greater social good. Second,
social and economic inequality, which are the inevitable result of the lottery of birth, should
be arranged such that they inhere in offices and stations in life available to all and thus are, by
consensus, seen to be to everyone's advantage. Injustice, then, is defined as an unequal
distribution of good things, with liberty being first among them.

While it can be and has been argued that the blind choosers envisioned by the new
contractarians might well choose to gamble on the outcome of the social order, such
arguments are ultimately lacking in interest. The point of the contractarian view does not lie
in what real people "would" do in an admittedly impossible situation. Rather, it is to provide
an abstract model that is intuitively satisfactory because, in fact, it corresponds to the ideas of
"fairness" so deeply rooted in the American national psyche.

1. The author most likely wrote this passage primarily to

(A) outline and defend a contractarian view of justice

(B) propose an alternative to radical solutions to social problems
(C) compare the utilitarian and contractarian theories
(D) resurrect the idea of the social contract

2. Which of the following would NOT be classified as the utilitarian way of conducting
social affairs, as it has been mentioned in the passage?

(A) Prohibiting homosexual relationships because they pose a threat to the social fabric
(B) Revoking free access to education in colleges and schools
(C) Making vaccination against a communicable disease mandatory
(D) Implementing a progressive taxation system
3. Which of the following is an assumption of the contractarian model, as presented by
the author?

(A) The decision makers act before acquiring any place in the social order.
(B) All members of the contracting group will place a high value on personal liberty.
(C) Justice can only be secured by ensuring that all positions in the social order have equal
power and status.
(D) The contracting parties will seek to safeguard their own liberties at the expense of the
rights of others.

4. The author implies that a party to the social contract who "chose to gamble on the
outcome of the social order" would select a principle of justice

(A) allowing an unequal access to liberty and other social goods

(B) based on the greatest possible equalization of both personal freedom and material
circumstances
(C) that explicitly denied inherent inequalities among the members of society
(D) that valued the benefit of society in the aggregate over the freedom of the individual

5. It can be inferred that the author feels the ideas of John Rawls are relevant today
because

(A) they present, in contrast to utilitarianism, an ethically-based concept of justice

(B) they outline a view of justice which results in the maximum possible liberty for all
(C) utilitarian ideas have led to social philosophies with which the author disagrees
(D) new evidence has strengthened the idea of the social contract