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. -Gauthier claims that the foundational crisis of morality should be resolved by:

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. -Critically examine Gauthier's conception of "deliberative rationality." What does deliberative rationality involve, and what advantages does Gauthier believe it has? Do you agree with Gauthier's claim that "there is simply nothing else for practical rationality to be"? Defend your answer.

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. -In response to the claim that morality needs no justification, 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. -According to Gauthier, moral considerations present themselves as constraining an agent's choices in ways that are independent of his desires.

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 is deliberative rationality? Do we always have reason to do what is deliberatively rational? Defend your answer.

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 there is nothing for practical rationality to be besides:

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 capacity for semantic representation is what distinguishes human beings from other animals.

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 is contractarianism and how does Gauthier think it overcomes the foundational crisis facing morality? What do you think the most serious problem is for the theory and why?

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 nothing justifies morality, but that morality needs no justification.

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, deliberative justification:

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 if we could find an explanatory role for moral properties:

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 best test of the justifiability of our existing moral practices is: