Wong, Baldwin
(2011)
Contractarianism’s dilemma: on the normativity of contemporary
contractarian theories.
PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Abstract
Contractarianism has a distinguished history and is one of the most influential
schools of thought nowadays, yet there are only few general discussions about this
school. The research question which intrigues me is whether contemporary
contractarianism can provide a satisfactory normative justification for political
principles. I argue that contractarianism, as a methodology, consists of three
elements: a conception of practical reason, hypothetical contractors, and a
hypothetical contract. Based on various conceptions of practical reason, different
contractarian models can be developed. In this thesis, I examine three possible
contractarian models: Hobbesian contractarianism (represented by David Gauthier),
Kantian contractarianism (represented by T. M. Scanlon) and hybrid
contractarianism (represented by John Rawls). I diagnose the shortcomings of these
three existing models respectively. Hobbesian contractarianism assumes a conception
of rationality, hence it conceives hypothetical contractors as individual utilitymaximizers,
and the hypothetical contract as a mutually advantageous agreement.
Kantian contractarianism assumes a conception of reasonableness, hence it conceives
hypothetical contractors as moral persons who would behave in a way which could
be justifiable to one another, and the hypothetical contract as an agreement that no
one could reasonably reject. These two models fail since their conceptions of
practical reason are too one-sided: the former overlooks reasonableness, whereas the
latter overlooks rationality. Due to their one-sideness, these models can at best justify
political principles that are general but not overriding. Hybrid contractarianism
avoids this problem by assuming that hypothetical contractors were both rational and
reasonable and proving that rationality and reasonableness would justify the same
hypothetical contract. However, in order to show the congruence between rationality
and reasonableness, this model inevitably assume substantial, controversial
conceptions of practical reason. Hence, hybrid contractarianism can at best justify
political principles that are overriding but not general. The failures of these three
models show the limit of this methodology. No matter how contractarians construct
their models, their models are subject to the fatal dilemma of choosing between
generality and priority. While these two properties are necessary for political
principles, this implies that contractarianism does not have the resources to offer a
satisfactory normative justification for political principles.
Actions (login required)
 |
Record administration - authorised staff only |
Download statistics
Download statistics