Rawls and the Utilitarian Principle

The last comment in class today was a question from Marx to Rawls asking why when setting up society from the original position, behind the veil of ignorance, would the society be set up in a way that did not utilize the utilitarian principle of the greatest amount for the greatest amount of people but instead justice as fairness. I think this is a very thought provoking question. Rawls’ idea of the original position is that the decisions made from the original position and not knowing what people’s particular social positions will be allows for decisions to be made to the advantage of all. The utilitarian principle centers on the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. It would appear that this is a good representation of what Rawls hoped to create from his thought experiment. So why would it be beneficial to favor a justice as fairness principle if it is beneficial? Rawls’ definition of justice is all social values and resources are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution is advantageous to everyone. This idea is carried out through the liberty principle and the difference principle. What would be the advantage of Rawls adopting a utilitarian principle? I think Rawls would say that based on his view of justice, his principles in a way do adopt the greatest amount for the greatest number of people because the only way that unequal distribution is just is if it is to the advantage of everyone (the greatest amount of people). One way to ensure this is that the liberty and difference principles both keep in mind the individual and the rest of society.