Exam 26: David Gauthier

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -The morality that Gauthier describes as facing a foundational crisis essentially involves:

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -An action is deliberatively justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility.

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -Gauthier describes his identification of morality with the agreements of rational persons as:

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -An action has deliberative justification if and only if:

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -What three strategies for saving morality from the foundational crisis does Gauthier discuss? Which does he think is successful, and which does he think are unsuccessful? Do you agree with his assessments? Why or why not?

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -According to Gauthier, a moral practice is justifiable if it would secure our agreement in an appropriate premoral situation.

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -According to Gauthier, moral considerations present themselves to agents as:

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -Gauthier defines "utility" as:

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -According to Gauthier, the best way to resolve the foundational crisis of morality is to show that moral properties play an important explanatory role.

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -What reasons does Gauthier give for his claim that morality faces a foundational crisis? What question does he think that any moral view has to answer? Do you agree that this question raises a serious challenge to morality? Why or why not?

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -Although Gauthier claims that morality faces a foundational crisis, some claim that morality needs no justification. How does Gauthier respond to this claim? Do you find his argument convincing? Why or why not?

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -According to Gauthier, the basis of morality is:

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -Gauthier claims that the content of a hypothetical agreement is determined by appeal to:

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -Pareto-optimality obtains when no one could do better without someone else doing worse.

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -Gauthier argues that only agreements offering equally favorable terms to all will invite stable compliance.

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -Gauthier claims that moral language fits a worldview that we have abandoned, according to which the world is purposively ordered.

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -Gauthier objects to Hume's characterization of morality as rooted in sympathy on the grounds that:

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -Gauthier claims that something can be relevant to practical justification only if it relates to:

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -Who is Hobbes's Foole and how does he raise a problem for contractarianism? How does Gauthier respond to the Foole? Do you think his response is adequate?

David Gauthier: Why Contractarianism? Gauthier begins by claiming that morality faces a foundational crisis: morality's supposed authority depends on a worldview we no longer accept - one according to which the world is purposively ordered. Because of this, there is a serious question as to why we should accept the constraints of morality, given that these constraints purport to be independent of our desires and interests. This question becomes particularly pressing when obeying the dictates of morality would require sacrificing our interests for the sake of someone or something that we do not personally care about. Some respond to this challenge by claiming that morality needs no justification. Gauthier claims that such a vindication is necessary, however. And we have an alternative method for justifying our actions that makes no reference to moral considerations. This method is that of deliberative justification, according to which an action is justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility (where utility is understood in terms of considered preferences). Even if we were to do away with morality, we could still justify our actions via deliberative rationality. Gauthier claims that there are three possible ways for morality to survive the challenge he has raised. One could argue that (i) we must postulate moral facts to explain our experiences, or (ii) one could argue that deliberative justification is somehow incomplete, or (iii) one could try to locate morality within the framework of deliberative rationality. Gauthier embraces the third way of resolving the crisis. He conceives of morality as a set of rules that constrain people's behavior, but that are mutually agreed on because they are to everyone's advantage. Because we gain more than we lose by submitting to such rules, deliberative rationality councils us to accept them. -Gauthier claims that we must accept the idea of deliberative justification because there is nothing else for practical rationality to be.