Rationality in Agreement

1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilbert Harman
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Contract Theory ◽  
Social Contract Theory ◽  
Initial Position ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Actual Agreement

Gauthier's title is potentially misleading. The phrase “morals by agreement” suggests a social contract theory of morality according to which basic moral principles arise out of an actual or hypothetical agreement. John Rawls defends a hypothetical agreement version, arguing that the basic principles of justice are those that would be agreed to in an initial position of fair equality. I myself defend an actual agreement version, arguing that the moral principles that apply to a person derive from implicit conventions the person has accepted in dealing with other people. Gauthier's view is different from either of these sorts of contract theory. Instead, he holds that certain basic principles of impartiality are prior to actual agreements.

On Choosing a Morality1

1975 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. B. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Moral Principle ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Mutual Assistance ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Similar Strategy ◽  
Principles Of Justice

John Rawls’ use of a contractarian strategy for justifying basic principles of justice has raised the hope that a similar strategy might work for a theory of right and moral principles generally. I want to show that this hope cannot be fulfilled.In what follows I interpret contractarianism in a Rawlsian way on the grounds that his is the most plausible version of the doctrine we are likely to get. I am not however concerned with the details of Rawls’ argument for justice but instead with an idea that appears to underlie the contractarian strategy. In order to avoid the complications of Rawlsian exegesis, I choose to discuss the doctrine as it might be used to justify a moral principle of mutual assistance and not as Rawls in fact uses it to justify principles of justice.

scholarly journals Environmental Justice and Rawlsian Social Contract Theory

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-60
Author(s):  
Stanislav Myšička
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Justice ◽  
Social Contract ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Natural Environment ◽  
Contract Theory ◽  
Social Contract Theory ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Theory Of Justice

Contemporary social and political theory is not wholly sufficient for dealing with environmental issues unless it will be more informed by political theories of justice. I present the view that environmental justice can be fruitfully approached from the point of view of contemporary social contract theory, mainly the one inspired by the work of John Rawls. Healthy natural environment is indispensable for many reasons for every human society; however, nature possesses also value going beyond pure instrumentality for human beings. Because humans can have great impact on natural environment in either positive or negative way, this entails duties on their part. Society’s dealings with the environment are regulated by laws and other publicmeasures, which in turn have their deeper justification in general theory of justice of that particular society. The article tries to show that contemporary social contract theory can fruitfully grasp principles of environmental justice, which could lead to more environment sensitive policies and be acceptable from liberal point of view at the same time.Politické myšlení nemůže adekvátně reagovat na environmentální problémy současné společnosti, pokud nebude více pracovat s konceptem environmentální spravedlnosti. V tomto článku se snažím ukázat způsob, jak může být otázka environmentální spravedlnosti uchopena pomocí teorie společenské smlouvy v podání Johna Rawlse. Lidé mají svoji činností významný dopad na životní prostředí, což má za následek nerovnou distribuci environmentálních dober a škod. Proto existují vůči ostatním lidem povinnosti vyplývající ze spravedlnosti vztahující se na environmentální oblast. Environmentální otázky se nicméně musí řešit pomocí závazných společenských pravidel, která mají podobu zákonů vynucovaných státem. Tyto zákony mají své hlubší ospravedlnění právě v určité teorii spravedlnosti, která zakládá jejich legitimitu. Ve článku se snažím ukázat, že pomoci teorie společenské smlouvy lze konstruovat soubor principů environmentální spravedlnosti pro společnost, která se chce stát více odpovědnou vůči životnímu prostředí a zároveň fungovat podle liberálních principů.

Justice and Rationality: Some Objections to the Central Argument in Rawls's Theory

1975 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 615-629 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Fishkin
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
Contract Theory ◽  
Social Contract Theory ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Alternative Version ◽  
Central Argument ◽  
Primary Goods ◽  
Principles Of Justice

The argument is made that Rawls's proposed principles of justice would not rationally be chosen in his proposed version of the “original position.” First of all, Rawls's own account of the information available in the original position provides no basis for the conclusions about “primary goods” which he believes would imply his proposed principles. Second, even if those conclusions about primary goods were to be accepted, they would not imply the proposed principles (the “general” and the “special” conceptions of justice) because the claims which Rawls cites in support of “maximin” actually imply a different conception. Lastly, an alternative version of the original position is suggested which would avoid these difficulties and which would, in addition, successfully support a maximin conception of justice. This is not meant, however, as a conclusive argument for maximin, but only as an indication that the objections advanced here do not apply to “social contract theory” as such, but only to the particular version of it which Rawls has proposed.

Book Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 285-287
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Social Contract ◽  
Moral Obligation ◽  
Contract Theory ◽  
Social Contract Theory ◽  
Major Work ◽  
Principles Of Justice

Hun Chung of Faculty of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University reviews “Modern Social Contract Theory” by Albert Weale. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Explores major work in social contract theory from 1950 to the present, focusing on the problems of defining principles of justice and demonstrating the grounds of moral obligation.”

Modern Social Contract Theory

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Weale
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Contract Theory ◽  
Social Contract Theory ◽  
Empirical Method ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Major Work ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Intellectual Context ◽  
Principles Of Justice

This book provides an exposition and evaluation of major work in social contract theory from 1950 to present. It locates the central themes of that theory in the intellectual legacy of utilitarianism, particularly the problems of defining principles of justice and of showing the grounds of moral obligation. Subsequently, it demonstrates how theorists responded in a novel way to the dilemmas articulated in utilitarianism, developing in their different approaches a constructivist method in ethics—a method that aimed to vindicate a liberal, democratic, and just political order. A distinctive feature of the book is its comparative approach. Each theory is placed in its particular intellectual context. Special attention is paid to the contrasting theories of rationality adopted by the different authors, whether that be utility theory or a deliberative conception of rationality, with the intention of assessing how far the principles advanced can be justified by reference to the hypothetical choices of rational contracting agents. The book also looks at some principal objections to the enterprise of contract theory, and offers its own programme for the future of that theory taking the form of the empirical method.

scholarly journals Contracting for Catastrophe:Legitimizing Emergency Constitutions by Drawing on Social Contract Theory

Res Publica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Voigt
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
Contract Theory ◽  
Social Contract Theory ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Half Century ◽  
States Of Emergency ◽  
The World

AbstractStates of emergency are declared frequently in all parts of the world. Their declaration routinely implies a suspension of basic constitutional rights. In the last half century, it has become the norm for constitutions to contain an explicit ‘emergency constitution’, i.e., the constitutionally safeguarded rules of operation for a state of emergency. In this paper, I ask whether inclusion of an emergency constitution can be legitimized by drawing on social contract theory. I argue that there are important arguments, both against and in favor of constitutionalized emergency provisions, and that social contract theory—as applied by economists—can be of some help when deciding whether to have, or not to have an emergency constitution. This paper introduces a novel argument for justifying emergency constitutions. It argues that they can serve as a commitment mechanism protecting both citizens and politicians from overreacting to rare but significant threats.

scholarly journals Evaluating social contract theory in the light of evolutionary social science

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-45
Author(s):  
Paul Seabright ◽  
Jonathan Stieglitz ◽  
Karine Van der Straeten
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Contract ◽  
Contract Theory ◽  
Social Contract Theory

scholarly journals Mencermati Teori Keadilan Sosial John Rawls

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-192
Author(s):  
A. Khudori Soleh
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
John Locke ◽  
Equal Opportunity ◽  
The Other ◽  
Social Injustice ◽  
First Principle ◽  
Justice Theory ◽  
Basic Concepts ◽  
Principles Of Justice

Rawls' justice theory is based on three basic concepts: concept of property from John Locke, social contract from Rousseau, and imperative categories from Kant. This Rawls' justice conception itself emerges as a respond for social injustice in society as well as i nequitable behavior affected by the ethics of utilitarianism. Furthermore, according to Rawls, justice is fairness. The principles of justice are, (1) equal and maximum feasible liberty for all, (2) power and wealth to be distributed equally, except where inequalities; would work for the adage of all and where all would have equal opportunity to attain the higher position. The first principle supposes as permanent principle and, which cannot be interpreted. On the other hand, the second principle degrades two formulas: (a) everyone’s  advantage (b) equally open. So forth, from formula (a) can be degraded two possibilities: principle of efficiency and principle of differentiation, whereas from formula (b) also can be degraded two possibilities: equality as careers open to talents and equality as equality of fair opportunity): Hencefonh, from possibility of (a) and (b) yielded four possibilities of justice interpretation: natural freedom, free equality, free aristocracy and the equality democratize.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document