Abstract

The article deals with the conflict between contractualist and broadly communitarian approaches to question of justice. I show that the objections that Sandel and Taylor direct against Rawlsian (and implicitly also other forms of) contractualism do not hit their target, because they misunderstand the essentially hypothetical features of contractualist justification. Hypothetical contractualism needs to rely on unembedded selves in the basic decision process for reasons of impartiality. Another objection focuses on the alleged excessive individualism behind contractualist theories. I demonstrate that this objection is also misguided due to lack of attention to different versions of individualism.