Contractualism and Contractarianism
Contract theories of morality ground moral principles in agreement: contractualism in what no one could reasonably reject, and contractarianism in what self-interested agents would rationally accept.
Definition
Contract theories hold that the authority of moral principles derives from their being the object of an idealized agreement: contractualism appeals to principles no suitably motivated person could reasonably reject, while contractarianism appeals to principles it would be rational for self-interested agents to accept.
Scope
This area covers the two main contract-based approaches to normative ethics. Contractualism (Scanlonian) grounds wrongness in principles no one could reasonably reject; contractarianism (Hobbesian) grounds morality in mutually advantageous agreement among rational self-interested agents. It also situates these within the broader social-contract tradition and examines the bargaining models that underwrite the contractarian strand.
Sub-topics
Core questions
- Does morality derive its authority from a hypothetical agreement among persons?
- Should the relevant agreement be modelled on reasonable rejection or on rational self-interest?
- Whom does the contract include, and how are those who cannot bargain accommodated?
- How does a contractual standard generate determinate moral principles?
Key theories
- Scanlonian contractualism
- Scanlon's view that an act is wrong if it would be disallowed by any principle for the general regulation of behaviour that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced general agreement.
- Hobbesian contractarianism
- The tradition, descending from Hobbes and developed by Gauthier, that grounds morality in the mutually advantageous agreements rational, self-interested agents would make to escape the costs of unconstrained conflict.
History
The social-contract idea, developed by Hobbes (1651), Locke, and Rousseau as a theory of political authority, was revived by Rawls (1971) for justice. In ethics it split into two strands: Gauthier (1986) developed a Hobbesian contractarianism grounded in rational self-interest, while Scanlon (1998) developed a Kantian-flavoured contractualism grounded in reasonable rejection, giving the area its present two-pronged shape.
Debates
- Reasonable rejection vs. rational advantage
- Contractualists hold that morality binds because of what cannot be reasonably rejected, whereas contractarians ground it in mutual advantage; critics of each question its independent motivation and scope.
- The scope of the moral community
- Contractarianism appears to exclude those unable to confer benefits, such as non-human animals and future generations, posing a challenge that contractualism's reasonable-rejection standard partly addresses.
Key figures
- Thomas Hobbes
- John Rawls
- T. M. Scanlon
- David Gauthier
Related topics
Seminal works
- hobbes1651
- rawls1971
- gauthier1986
- scanlon1998
Frequently asked questions
- What is the difference between contractualism and contractarianism?
- Contractualism (Scanlon) grounds morality in principles no one could reasonably reject, appealing to a moral motivation to justify oneself to others; contractarianism (Hobbes, Gauthier) grounds it in agreements rational self-interested agents would accept for mutual advantage.
- Are contract theories about politics or morality?
- The social-contract idea began as a theory of political legitimacy, but contractualism and contractarianism extend the contract device to ground the content and authority of moral principles themselves.