No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Dissolving the Moral Contract
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
Extract
What response is to be given to the immoralist's question ‘Why should I be just?’? I say ‘response’ because it is not clear that the immoralist is looking for an answer. His question seems to be rhetorical, even contemptuous. It nevertheless presents a challenge to morality. The immoralist's position is that it is irrational to take justice and fairness seriously and that his own advantage or self-interest (perhaps in a very wide sense) is the only rational consideration for him. This is not a moral position although it is a normative position; the immoralist has an alternative to the moral life but not an alternative morality. (Compare how some lifestyles are appropriately presented as alternatives to religion but not as alternative religions.) The immoralist is not a moralist with idiosyncratic views on what is just and fair—what he might call ‘true’ justice or ‘natural’ justice. On the contrary, where some co-operative mutually beneficial project is involved he presumably recognizes what is fair (or at least what is patently unfair) much as we all do. What he does not recognize is the rationality of being fair. Nor is this because he thinks there is some other consideration (moral or otherwise) which overrides justice in this particular case. He does not deal with our complaint ‘But that isn't fair!’ by presenting other, allegedly overriding, considerations. Rather, such a complaint is not granted an initial relevance. ‘Why should I be just?’ he says.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1977
References
1 An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics (Cambridge, 1950), 162.Google Scholar
2 Human Conduct (New York, 1961), 191–195.Google Scholar
3 Generalization in Ethics (New York, 1961), 319–320, 325, 327, 339.Google Scholar See my discussion of Singer in ‘Can a Moral Man Raise the Question “Should I be Moral?”’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 4 (03 1975), 499–507.Google Scholar
4 Cf. Scriven, Michael, Primary Philosophy (New York, 1966), Ch. 7.Google Scholar
5 A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), secs. 3, 4, 20, 24.Google Scholar Cf. my discussion ‘John Rawls and the Methods of Ethics’, Philosophy and Phenomenalogical Research, 36 (09 1975), 100–112.Google Scholar
6 The Grounds of Moral Judgment (Cambridge, 1967), 88, 93–99.Google Scholar
7 Cf. Grotius, , De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Bk. II, Ch. 12, esp. sec. 11Google Scholar; Kant, , The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, sec. 8Google Scholar, also the discussion under the heading There is Only One Innate Right’ of the Introduction.
8 The Social Contractor, tr. Cranston, M. (Baltimore, 1968), 61, 76; cf. also 60, 144.Google Scholar
9 See Lewis, David, Convention (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), 52–60.Google Scholar Lewis's concern with language explains his almost exclusive concern with ‘co-ordination problems’ (p. 5) rather than ‘games of pure conflict’ (p. 13). Thus contract philosophers, who tend to see the human situation as a kind of Prisoner's Dilemma, cannot employ Lewis's notion of ‘convention’ as such. However Lewis does discuss ‘social contracts’ (pp. 88–97). Also, see Rawls on ‘publicity’, op. cit., sec. 23.
10 Cf. Green, T. H., Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation (London, 1931), sees. 23, 136, 139, 140Google Scholar, Cf. also Hobbes, , De Cive, III, 4Google Scholar, where he claims it is impossible to do wrong (injuria) to anyone with whom there is no covenant, deed or promise. Cf. also Harman, Gilbert, ‘Moral Relativism Defended’, The Philosophical Review, 84 (07 1975), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Harman claims his is only a ‘soberly logical thesis’ but this is implausible.
11 This corresponds to Kant's ‘Postulate of Public Law’ in The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, sec. 42; cf. also secs. 41, 44. I owe this reference to Alan Ryan.
12 This corresponds somewhat to Locke's claim that to join political society each man resigns his right to judge and punish others. Cf. Two Treatises, II, 87.Google Scholar
13 Cf. Rousseau, , p. 68.Google Scholar For the opposite view see Grice, , pp. 113–114, 132, 143–147, 148Google Scholar; Harman, , pp. 11–15.Google Scholar For an intermediate view see Gauthier, David, ‘Rational Cooperation’, Noûs, 8 (03, 1974), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Cf. Kant, secs. 8 and 42.
15 Cf. Ross, W. D., The Right and the Good (Oxford, 1930), 60–61.Google Scholar Ross says his discussion applies only to ‘duties arising out of contract’ as opposed to those which ‘arise otherwise’ (p. 55). But he takes the rights to life, liberty and property to rest on an ‘explicit or implicit understanding’ (p. 62).