(Return to main path )

I'd like to say right off that I think Held is mistaken if she believes that Gauthier and Lomasky and Narveson claim that we should model all or nearly all human relationships on the idea of a contract. That is simply not what they are saying.

Gauthier and Lomasky and Narveson are attracted to the model because it solves one of the crucial problems of modern ethics. Fred has already mentioned this a couple of times. We can call it the problem of foundations or the problem of obligation. The point is that modern ethics -- non-theologically based ethics -- has a problem providing  foundations for its demands or obligations. Ann can say that we should all abide by the principle of utility and Virginia Held can say that we should all care for each other in the way that a mother cares for her child. But both of them will have a problem saying WHY we are obliged to do that.

Gauthier offers a solution. He says that we are obliged to submit to certain moral restraints on our activity because rational people under certain circumstances would agree to do so. He has an solution to the problem. He has a foundation for morals.

If you throw out contractarianism, you have to find a new foundation. What do you have to offer?