Contractarians

Contractarians are philosophers who defend contractarianism, a view that moral and political norms derive from the terms of a social contract accepted by rational agents. The idea is that rules are legitimate if they could be agreed upon in a fair bargaining situation, rather than being derived from divine command, natural rights, or mere consequence chasing. In contemporary usage, “contractarianism” often overlaps with “contractualism” as a method of justification.

Historical roots go to Thomas Hobbes, who argued that in a state of nature individuals surrender freedoms to a sovereign to escape perpetual fear. Later figures such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau treated consent and general will as foundations of political order, though with different emphases on liberty and equality. In the late 20th century, Rawls offered a foundational version of contractarianism, using the original position and veil of ignorance to derive principles of justice. David Gauthier developed a rational-choice variant emphasizing mutual advantage.

Core claims include that moral rules should be those rational agents would accept as part of an agreement under conditions that protect autonomy and reciprocity. This often entails principles like basic liberties, equal concern, and fair distribution, depending on the theorist. Some contractarians view morality as a matter of agreements among self-interested individuals; others emphasize public justification and the rational basis for enforcing norms.

Critics argue that contractarian theories presuppose uniform rationality and negotiability, overlook power imbalances and historical injustices, and may exclude nonparticipants. They also debate whether actual agreements or hypothetical bargains provide adequate grounds for moral duties. Nonetheless, contractarianism has been influential in liberal political philosophy and debates over justice, rights, and constitutional design.