(Click here to continue on the main path)

Let me bring in another contractarian who is not a libertarian: David Gauthier. I've been reading his book Morals by Agreement. It's pretty amazing. I've said before that I get my ethics from my religion. I don't need a social contract. But if you want to see how complex and wide-ranging a contractarian argument can be, Gauthier's your man.

Gauthier recognizes that modern moral philosophy has had a problem providing foundations for moral obligation. He proposes contract or agreement as a foundation. If people were to agree not to tell lies (even when it is in their interest to do so), then they would be obligated not to lie. They need no other foundation for their obligation.

Of course, it's not that simple. There is no historical agreement not to lie and Gauthier knows that. Let me give you a quick summary of what he says.

First, his goal is to provide "a morality, not of absolute standards, but of agreed constraints." Second, he uses the modern theory of rational choice  to show that "the rational principles for making choices, or decisions among possible actions, include some that constrain the actor pursuing his own interest in an impartial way." Third, he identifies these constraints as moral principles. He tells us that

Our claim is that in certain situations involving interaction with others, an individual chooses rationally only in so far as he constrains his pursuit of his own interest or advantage to conform to principles expressing the impartiality characteristic of morality. To choose rationally, one must choose morally. This is a strong claim. Morality, we shall argue, can be generated as a rational constraint from the non-moral premisses of rational choice....We are committed to showing why an individual, reasoning from non-moral premises, would accept the constraints of morality on his choices....Our theory must generate, strictly as rational principles for choice, and so without introducing prior moral assumptions, constraints on the pursuit of individual interest or advantage that, being impartial, satisfy the traditional understanding of morality....Moral principles are introduced as the objects of fully voluntary ex ante agreement among rational persons. Such agreement is hypothetical, in supposing a pre-moral context for the adoption of moral rules and practices. But the parties to agreement are real, determinate individuals, distinguished by their capacities, situations, and concerns....As rational persons understanding the structure of their interaction, they recognize a place for mutual constraint, and so for a moral dimension in their affairs. [Morals by Agreement, p. 4-9]