```Rawls versus the Utilitarian

This very simple example illustrates why Rawls and the Utilitarian hold

Consider distribution of Goods to 3 individuals, A, B, C

This example could easily be extended to consider more individual.

Distribution 1		Distribution 2		Distribution 3

A	100			100				90

B	100			150				110

C 	100			110				500

Net 	300			450				700

Both Rawls and the Utilitarian prefer #2 to #1.
The Net total is greater, and each individual A, B, C benefits
So, by the second principle, #2 preferred to #1.

Compare #3 and #1.
For the Utilitarian, #3 preferred. The Net greater.
But nor for Rawls. Comparing #3 with #1, individual A receives less. And we
are not justified in sacrificing one individual's interests to benefit the
community in this way.

A similar argument shows that the Utilitarian prefers #3 to #2, but Rawls does
not.

Here 2 intuitive approaches really give different conclusions. We must,
therefore, find some way to choose between Rawls' position, and that of the
utilitarian.
```