Skip to main content

Contractarianism and Rational Choice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Scientific Approach to Ethics
  • 634 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter we will survey the rational choice approaches for normative ethics developed in the second part of the twentieth century. Some of these approaches belong to contractarian ethics but our main focus will be not on a social contract but on rational choice. We will survey and evaluate the contributions of several prominent thinkers (Rawls, Nozick, Sen, Harsanyi, and Scanlon) from the lens of the scientific approach to ethics to demonstrate that its principles have a crucial importance to the progress on normative ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The idea of veil of ignorance was earlier introduced by the economist John Harsanyi (see further in this chapter).

References

  • Carroll, Sean. 2010a. The Moral Equivalent of the Parallel Postulate. Cosmic Variance, March 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010b. Sam Harris Responds. Cosmic Variance, March 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010c. Science and Morality: You Can’t Derive “Ought” from “Is.” Cosmic Variance, May 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, David P. 1967. Morality and Advantage. The Philosophical Review 76: 460–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1969. The Logic of Leviathan: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, David. 1977. The Social Contract as Ideology. Philosophy & Public Affairs 6: 130–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Sam. 2011. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, J. 1953. Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-Taking. Journal of Political Economy 61 (5): 434–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, John C. 1975. Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls’s Theory. American Political Science Review 69 (2): 594–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1977. Morality and the Theory of Rational Behavior. Social Research 44: 623–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavka, Gregory S. 1987. Mind. New Series, 96(381): 117–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1958. Justice as Fairness. The Philosophical Review 67: 164–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, Thomas M. 1982. Contractualism and Utilitarianism. In Utilitarianism and Beyond, ed. Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams, 103–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, Thomas. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, Amartya. 1974. Rawls Versus Bentham: An Axiomatic Examination of the Pure Distribution Problem. Theory and Decision 4 (3): 301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Storchevoy, M. (2018). Contractarianism and Rational Choice. In: A Scientific Approach to Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69113-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics