By Bill Soderberg

1. State the problem.
2. Consider alternative ways to solve or manage the problem.
3. State the likely consequences of each alternative.
4. Evaluate the consequences of the alternatives by stating the risks and benefits of each.
5. Select the alternative most likely to produce the greatest net benefit.

The procedure described in Steps 1-5 is applied in part to a cards-up approach in the first two rounds of the Rawls Game. (See a description of the Rawls Game on my website <www.mc.cc.md.us/~bsoderbe> . The procedure is applied only in part during the Rawls Game, since just one solution to a problem is considered in each round of the game.) The procedure may be followed from either of two perspectives—one’s own interests (self-interest) or the interests of the greater number who are affected by the action (altruism).

Self-interest is the primary motive in the first round of the game, and altruism is the main motive in the second. A person who uses either approach must be alert for certain problems--as I explain in the description of the Rawls Game. When self-interest is the perspective adopted in the first round of the game, a tyranny of the powerful minority can occur. Altruism is the primary motive in the second round, and a tyranny of the majority’s interests can occur.

One may also turn the cards face down. This is the procedure followed in the third round of the Rawls Game. Steps 6-10 below describe the decision-making approach with the cards face down.

6. State the problem.
7. Consider alternative ways to solve or manage the problem.
8. State the likely consequences of each alternative from the perspective of those most heavily impacted—that is, the least well off.
9. Evaluate the consequences of each alternative from the perspective of those most heavily impacted.
10. Select the alternative most likely to minimize the impact on the least well off.

Steps 6-10 help to explain John Rawls’ account of the origin of rights. When things have gotten bad—that is, when slavery, genocide, religious intolerance, and so forth have occurred—wars have been fought. Following armed conflict in each of these cases, rights have been created to protect the least well off. Basic liberty rights (property, religious freedom, and the like) and welfare rights (life, pursuit of happiness) are created by unanimous vote with the cards face down.

FOR PHILOSOPHY STUDENTS:
A libertarian employs the following procedure from the perspective of self-interest.

1. State the problem.
2. Consider alternative ways to solve or manage the problem.
3. State the likely consequences of each alternative.
4. Evaluate the consequences of the alternatives by stating the risks and benefits of each.
5. Select the alternative most likely to produce the greatest net benefit.

If conflicts arise, a libertarian can modify his or her libertarianism by adopting a more altruistic approach. The same five steps would be followed, but in this case the alternative selected would be the one most likely to produce the greatest net benefit for those affected by the action. The libertarian could fall back, in other words, on a utilitarian principle when matters get rough and the libertarian approach degenerates into arbitrary and tyrannical treatment of some people by others.

Should the fallback utilitarian position fail to address the difficulties and produce another form of tyranny—a tyranny of the majority’s interests—the following additional back-up position is possible. This fallback enables people to exercise their autonomy.

6. State the problem.
7. Consider alternative ways to solve or manage the problem.
8. State the likely consequences of each alternative from the perspective of those most heavily impacted—that is, the least well off.
9. Evaluate the consequences of each alternative from the perspective of those most heavily impacted.
10. Select the alternative most likely to minimize the impact on the least well off.

This position protects the rights of everyone, including the least well off. Hobbes does not accept even the possibility that Steps 6-10 can be employed. His account of morality keeps the cards up throughout the decision-making process—that is, he doesn’t get beyond enlightened self-interest and considers long-term (enlightened) self-interest the moral point of view.

The utilitarians emphasize altruism and place the greatest net benefit for all concerned at center stage. They acknowledge self-interest as a motive, and they maintain that people will naturally look out for self-interest in decision-making. The utilitarians , however, regard altruism, not self-interest, as the motive of morality. To judge what is right, according to the utilitarian, one must use the measure of what is likely to produce the greatest net benefit for all concerned—not just for oneself. Mill and Taylor regard altruism as close to or identical with the fair-minded, cards-down point of view, but their critics--such as Rawls--take them to task for doing so. Rawls, for example, says utilitarianism cannot account for justice, by which he means that they emphasize distributive justice to the point where they cannot take retributive justice into account.

Rawlsians hold that the basic rights by which democratic societies govern themselves are created from a cards-down perspective. Once these constitutional rights are in place, the cards go back up and day-to-day decisions by individuals and groups may be made from the perspective of self-interest or altruism. When new conflicts arise and things get bad, according to Rawls, the cards may be turned face down and new rights negotiated or old rights re-negotiated.

Religious communities try to teach virtues to their young. Some view themselves as teaching the young first to turn the cards down and to consider the least well off. Some religions also teach the young to let the fair-minded few who are capable of turning down the cards--namely, the religious leaders--make the important decisions for the community. To inculcate virtues, religions often teach the young in separate schools. Religious communities generally rule out self-interest and accept fair-mindedness as the moral point of view. Altruism is ordinarily encouraged as a basis for charitable giving of oneself and one's wealth.