(Return to main path )

I think that modern social contract theory -- contractarianism -- is really interesting; and it may turn out to be a major contribution to ethical theory.

The main problem for modern ethics is to develop foundations for ethical obligation. Why should any of us do things that it is not in our interest to do? Why follow any "impartial" rules that do not favor us over others? Why are we obliged to consider the good of others when we make decisions? Those are the questions that keep modern secular thinkers up at night.

I personally base my ethics on my religion. They are based on how I think God wants us to live. But for secular people, that solution doesn't work. Historically they have tried to base their ethics on purely conceptual arguments (Alan Gewirth), utility or welfare (Brandt and Hare), science, evolutionary theory, and probably more possibilities that I don't know about. The point is that none of it has achieved widespread acceptance. There are always skeptics who have undermined the effort.

For example, it is all well and good to accept the principle of utility (which tells us that we should act in a way that maximizes the welfare of humanity), but suppose someone asks why he should do that? The Victorian philosopher Henry Sidgwick admitted that he had no proof for the principle. Or, when working from evolutionary theory, for example, how do we derive a moral 'ought' from an evolutionary 'is'?

The beauty of the contractarian approach is that it provides plausible foundations for impartial ethical rules in prudence or rational self-interest. The goal is to partially eliminate the opposition between self-interest and moral impartiality. Moral rules are assimilated into the dictates of rational self-interest. Some contractarians use concepts and arguments from modern game theory to support their views.

This approach was revived by John Rawls in his Theory of Justice. It was further developed by David Gauthier in his Morals by Agreement. It has been taken in a libertarian direction by Loren Lomasky and Jan Narveson.

I think this is a fascinating approach that may help solve the problem of foundations for secular thinkers. We should study it carefully.