Two Paths Of Contract Theory To Justify Moral Principles

Social contract theory is very influential in the history of political philosophy. Traditional contract theory is a theory concerning the legitimacy of political authority. Contemporary moral philosophers used the notion of "what people could agree to" in order to justify the principles of morality and justice.There are two paths for contract theory to justify moral principles. At this path David Gauthier and John Rawls are two most important philosophers who inherited the tradition of Hobbes and Kant respectively. My thesis is to illustrate the dilemma of justification by means of an analysis of these two paths of contract theory.Gauthier refused to resort to moral intuition. The parties are assumed to pursue their self-interest rationally and have the ability to provide benefits to others. The parties lack of a moral perspective from which consider "what is good for all". They create so-called "moral principles" through bargaining based on their own interests. However, the moral principles in Gauthier's theory are mutually beneficial rules which reflect the balance of the parties' power. These principles can't explain one of our considered moral judgments that discriminating against the weak is wrong.Rawls regarded the characterization of the original position as a part of reflective equilibrium. The parties behind the veil of ignorance have to consider the interests of all the people in the society in selecting the principles of justice. The method of reflective equilibrium is essential in Rawls' argument for his two principles of justice. Contract theory can play a role in justification when it is incorporated into the procedure of reflective equilibrium.There is a dilemma for contract theory to justify moral principles. On the one hand, if contract theory does not use the method of reflective equilibrium, it cannot build up moral principles which show an equal concern about the interests of all; on the other hand, if contract theory is included in the procedure of reflective equilibrium, it cannot become a decisive argument. We should not see the agreement of the parties in the original position as the main argument to justify the principles of justice. The difficulties of moral argument can be seen in this dilemma.