Rawls theory differs from utilitarianism in three significant ways22 ...

Rawls theory differs from utilitarianism in three significant ways22 : First, utilitarians can accept inequalities, social arrangements in which some benefits at the expense of others provided the benefits (or pleasures) exceed the costs (or pains) so that the outcome is the maximization of overall welfare level (the greatest happiness of the greatest number), secondly, while utilitarians defend liberty and political rights, they have no objection to limiting liberty or restricting political rights, provided doing so would promote greater well being.

Rawls first principle (the equal maximization liberty principle) means that there are some rights freedom of speech & association the right to vote and stand for public office liberty of conscience & freedom of thought, freedom of the person and the right to hold personal property, freedom from arbitrary arrest, which every system must respect. These are rights that may not be sacrificed to increase the aggregate welfare level.

Thirdly, Rawls conception of benefits is different from utilitarianism which is concerned with welfare. Rawls by contrast defines benefits in terms of "primary goods": liberty and opportunity, income and wealth and the bases of self respect. These need not be considered desirable in themselves but they give persons the opportunities rationally to further their own autonomy.

The above discussion has revealed that Rawls seems to lay down a contractarian theory of justice in which participation in the understanding of justice as fairness makes a type of government called constitutional democracy. The model which Rawls proposes as satisfying has two principles of justice. It is a constitutional democracy in which the government regulates a free economy in a certain way.

More fully, if law and government act effectively to keep market competitive, resources fully employed, property and wealth widely distributed overtime and to maintain the appropriate social minimum, then if there is equality of opportunity, underwritten by education for all the resulting distribution will be just.23 The idea of distributive justice in Rawls theory in simple terms requires that the courts should take a liberal view of the premises of law and so interpret them as to distribute benefits to the largest number of people so that the harsh effects of the technicalities of law are contained within the narrowest limits.24 Thus, Rawls believes that a fully satisfying existential life requires justice.