Mutual Advantage Contractualism

Improved Essays
Replies:

For most, the objections above raise too large a problem for contractualism. However, there are some philosophers who continue to defend the theory and so have put forth replies to the objections. In response to the first objection, that the rights of those who are unable to make agreements are ignored, mutual-advantage contractualism argues that the fact that some vulnerable individuals are unable to make agreements has no bearing on their moral rights. The theory says that those who have more bargaining power and are able to make agreements would still be required to treat those with less bargaining power equally and morally. This is because there are always individuals with more bargaining power that would be able to cause harm
…show more content…
This is, in part, because some do not believe it to be a problem. However, it is possible to surmise the way in which each version of contractualism would deal with this objection. Mutual-advantage contractualism would perhaps argue that the guilt felt when harming an individual or the sympathy felt for an individual that has been harmed is not problematic. This is because the emotions are felt because social conventions have led to a perception of certain actions as right or wrong, despite the fact that the contract was grounded in selfishness. This means that these emotions are able to be felt because individuals are not always conscious of the underlying self serving reasons for morality. The reasonable-agreement theory would then argue that these emotions are felt because having concern for the welfare of others is part of the social contract – so, not feeling these emotions would be rejecting the agreement and would therefore make that individual unreasonable (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Contractarianism …show more content…
However, problems with selfishness and its link with morality in the first contemporary theory, mutual-advantage contractualism, led to a second contemporary theory, reasonable-agreement contractualism. The second version has been shown to have problems, especially with the rights of the weak. Despite these issues, both versions of contractualism still have followers today. It is because of this that a comparison of the two is imperative to the task of understanding whether contractualism has any merit. This essay has discussed the advantages and disadvantages of both theories – where it was shown that mutual-advantage contractualism has a more detrimental disadvantage, that morality should be self serving. Then, objections to each version revealed that both theories had problems with the rights of those who are unable to make agreements, and both had problems with certain emotions. In the final section the replies to these objections were explained. The replies for both versions of contractualism solve the problems adequately. However, mutual-advantage contractualism continues to have the detrimental problem of morality existing with selfishness – an argument that does not seem plausible, and a problem that this version is unable to solve. It is because of this that reasonable-agreement contractualism is more plausible. However, simply the fact that this version of contractualism is more

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    I feel unpremeditated outcomes should have less bearing when appraising the morality of a decision, unless said outcome was a glaring omission. Similarly, as with moral absolutism, human individuality renders the practical application of consequentialism extremely difficult, as it requires individuals to consider the needs of others as having the same value as their own (Smart and Williams, 1973). Whilst being idealistic in theory, in practice individuals are much more likely to act egoistically, in that they value their own interests and desires first and other second (Moseley, n.d.). To summarise, whilst consequentialism is somewhat idealistic, it would require humanity to be all-knowing in their decision-making and completely altruistic, thus the practical application of the theory is…

    • 1036 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    W. K. Clifford states in his essay The Ethics of Belief that it is immoral to hold beliefs that are based on insufficient evidence. He suggests that to hold such a belief is harmful to oneself as well as others. Not only is it immoral to form a belief on insufficient reason, but it is also immoral to keep a belief while ignoring doubts or avoiding an honest perspective on the belief. Clifford uses two stories as examples of instances where people immorally kept a belief and the outcome benefitted them while hurting those around them. The central idea of Clifford’s essay is that a belief is not morally correct because of the issue of right or wrong but rather if the belief had been founded on proper grounds or if it was entertained on improper…

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Do I think utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue theory is right? Utilitarianism is acts that make people happy are right, and acts that cause pain to people are bad actions. Deontology is where an act must be done from a sense of duty to have moral worth. Virtue theory is says people must act how other people would act in that situation. These theories all seem to have one flaw in common.…

    • 1608 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Though the former is more morally upstanding, Smith argues: “It is so disagreeable to think ill of ourselves, that we often purposely turn away our view from those circumstances which might render that judgement unfavorable” (Smith 43-46). Thinking oneself a bad person is a difficult thing for the mind to handle, so rather than face the truth of his actions a man may deceive himself into believing the act justified. It takes a certain bravery to face the deformities of one’s own conduct, but when it is especially improper, facing what one has done in the light that a stranger may see it is a very painful concept. Smith notes on this…

    • 1032 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Therefore, moral truth is relative and varies from culture to culture. Further on, he justifies why the cultural relativism argument is invalid, and why cultural relativism (if it were true) is an unacceptable form of morality. Finally, he makes concessions to acknowledge some valuable learning points of cultural relativism. In this essay, I argue the flaws in his conclusions and maintains that although it is important for objective truths to exist, cultural relativism may still be a best explanation for some extreme cases of disagreements that we observe today. The Cultural Differences argument postulates that different cultures have different moral codes.…

    • 1886 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    In Part One, I addressed MacIntyre’s interpretation of expressivism. For MacIntyre Expressivisim is a view that holds moral statements to more value than descriptive statements. Expressivist are often ones to favor desires and stances that align with their attitudes. The main idea behind expressivisim is that they use moral statements to express their approval or disapproval of actions and desires that it be or not be performed. However, the problem with the theory remains in the fact that sometimes moral statements begin to be used in ways that do not express attitudes and fail to make sense in accordance with standard agreements and moral disagreements.…

    • 3268 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In relation to lying, Kant is concerned that the action cannot be universalized. Kant believes actions should be universal because those actions are assisting in the function of society. An immoral action does not help the action function well. In the case of lying, the trust necessary to form a society is eroded and the society cannot function. Thus, lying is an action that cannot be morally permissible.…

    • 1751 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The virtue of justice in not natural and is actually artificial according to Hume. Justice is not natural because it’s existence depends on human conventions because of how necessary it is fro social life. In summary, Hume basically believes justice is a compromise and having a certain amount of respect for other people’s…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    This objection is also shared by Bernard Williams, an English moral philosopher, he believed that moral theories were not enough to establish the morality of an action. Williams believed that there wasn’t a relationship between the utility produced by the consequences and the action taken. (Williams, 1990) The consequences of an action, although may be beneficial, are not always able to determine morality. A persons means of obtaining the beneficial consequences, the ones that maximise utility, may be morally wrong. Yet, a utilitarian would excuse this in favour of having the maximised utility.…

    • 1239 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The opposition’s motive against this position would to remove the one or the other, not both. Another issue is determinism failing to explain twists such as someone who seemed very likely to make one choice, but ended up choosing the latter. These types of oddities would make determinism’s faulty nature unappealing while making free will more favorable when both should have equal consideration. Use of determinism also has a negative affect on motivation, causing people to put less effort into difficult tasks (Vohs…

    • 709 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays