 | You can helpexpand this article with text translated fromthe corresponding article in French. (April 2024)Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
Contractualism as a broad term refers to a family of political orethical theories that have their roots in thesocial contract tradition. Contractualist ethical theories, base morality in mutually beneficial agreement or contract amongrational, reasonable agents. Contractualism is sometimes referred to as the "third approach" in morality as opposed to its two prominent rivals,consequentialism anddeontology.Contractualism in its narrower meaning, refers to one particular branch of contractualist ethical theories developed byT. M. Scanlon.[1]
Throughout the history of political and ethical theories, many philosophers had views that more or less involved a notion ofsocial contract. These philosophers include but are not limited toThomas Hobbes (1651),Samuel Pufendorf (1673),John Locke (1689),Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762),Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1851), andImmanuel Kant (1797).[2] (see:Social contract § Philosophers)
While rooted in traditional views, the main contractualist ethical theories are contemporary and were developed in the 20th century. Two distinguishable schools of contractual ethical theories areHobbesian Contractualism (akacontractarianism) which includes the theory ofDavid Gauthier (1986), andKantian contractualsim which includesJohn Rawls (1971) andThomas M. Scanlon (1982)'s theories.[1]
Contractualism as an alternative account toutilitarianism was first proposed byJohn Rawls in his bookA Theory of Justice (1971) where he definesjustice as fairness with an emphasis onimpartiality. He discusses that the principles of justice are principles that would be accepted by self-interested but reasonable agents from onoriginal position (an initial position in society where everyone are equal, and decisions are made from behind a "veil of ignorance" where no one knows what roles or status they will end up having in the society). While Rawls's contractualism is mainly a political theory, according to himself, it can be used to develop a moral contractualist theory called "rightness as fairness", suggesting that everyone should follow the principles that their universal acceptance would be accepted from a rational, impractical standpoint.[3][1]
Thomas M. Scanlon proposes contractualism as a better alternative to utilitarianism in a book chapter titled "Contractualism andUtilitarianism" (1982) and later developed his theory further in his bookWhat We Owe to Each Other (1998). According to this Scanlon, an action is morally permissible if it is justifiable based on agreements among parties that are affected by that action.[4]
As Scanlon explains, unlike Rawls, his contractualism as an account of morality, does not involve making a decision from anoriginal position and behind the veil of ignorance. Scanlon acknowledges that involved agents might have different goals and interests and therefore, impartiality is no longer central in his view. Rather, he mainly focuses on justifiability of an action given the specific circumstances around it including the agents partial interests.[4] (See also:T. M. Scanlon § Contractualism)
David Gauthier's cotractariansm is centered around individual rationals. He proposes that everyone, in the long term, will be better off if corporate. Even if one only cares about their ownself-interest, it is more beneficial for them to consider other's interests as well. Because otherwise, if they maximize their own gains withouts considering how their action minimizes others' gains, they will eventually be get excluded from cooperative opportunities. Therefore, a "constrained maximizer" benefits them better than "straightforward maximizers". As a Hobbsian contractrian, Gauthier's morality is based on mutually benefitedcooperation among rational agents with mainly self-interests. This contrasts the Kanitian contractulaists views that base morality on agreed-upon contracts among agents that are reasonable and respectful of others' interest and try to be eaither impartial (Rawls's view) or justify their actions to others (Scanlon).[5][1] (See also:David Gauthier § Philosophy)
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
