(Click here to continue on the main path)

Let me try to summarize a few of the criticisms of contractarianism. Some of these have already been mentioned.

• All of the contracts or agreements philosophers discuss are hypothetical. They never actually took place. We must be very clear, then, about why we should consider ourselves morally obliged to adhere to them. I'm not saying that this question cannot be answered, but I am saying that we have to be clear on what our answer is.
  
  
• It appears that each philosopher starts in a different original position and discovers a different hypothetical contract. Furthermore, it appears that each philosopher find a contract that supports his or her favorite political philosophy. Is this just a coincidence? I'm not sure. It seems to me that using the contractarian approach ends up with the same political differences we see all around us. We have left wing contractarians and right wing contractarians. Is this really progress?
  
  
• The contractarian model seems to assume that everyone is a strong, independent person. In the hypothetical original position they are more or less self-interested. Each make a contract with others largely for the benefits of cooperation. They do this because it is mutually advantageous. But where do the weak and the dependent fit in?  (And don't forget, all of us are weak and dependent at various times in our lives.) What about the disabled and the not so intelligent? They may not be able to offer much that can benefit others. Why should the more capable parties agree to any rules of justice or morality that limit how they must treat the highly dependent, the seriously disabled, and the vastly less capable members of society?
  
  
• What about animals? If we think that only parties that can agree to a contract with others (which requires understanding the concepts of 'contract' and 'agree to') can be guaranteed moral rights by the original contract, then animals seem to be left out. Is there a way to bring them in?
  
  
• Aren't there large areas of life that don't fit into the contractarian model? Do the obligations of parents to children and children to parents fit?
  
  
• Some critics have agreed that contractarian theories of morals (including moral rights) show that it is in the interest of the parties to the contract to adopt a set of moral rules, but they have also claimed that the contractarian approach does not show why anyone should abide by the agreed-upon rules after the agreement is made. It remains in the interest of each individual to cheat (i.e., break the rules) in any number of cases. Thus, in the end, the theory doesn't provide a rationale for following moral rules after all.