contractarianism

Contractarianism is a family of theories in moral and political philosophy that explains the authority of norms by appealing to an agreement among rational agents. In its core form, moral or political principles are justified if they would be agreed to under fair bargaining conditions or would be part of a rational compact. The approach emphasizes rational choice, mutual benefit, and legitimacy derived from cooperative arrangements rather than divine command or tradition.

Historically, Thomas Hobbes argued that to escape the state of nature people consent to surrender power to a sovereign. John Locke maintained that government arises from consent and protects natural rights. Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized freedom realized through a general will formed by the social contract. In the 20th century, John Rawls developed a theory of justice from a hypothetical original position behind a veil of ignorance; David Gauthier advanced a rational-choice version; Christine Korsgaard and Thomas Scanlon offered contractualist accounts focusing on reasons and duties that could be accepted by reasonable beings.

Contractarianism distinguishes hypothetical contracts used to justify norms from actual agreements and addresses questions of political legitimacy, including who counts as a party to the contract and what terms are acceptable. Some contractarians ground ethical theory in mutual advantage or fairness, while others emphasize universalizable reasons or duties.

Critics challenge the assumptions of rational agreement, the treatment of non-rational beings, and the sufficiency of consent for justice or obligation. Debates continue over the scope of contractarian justification, the inclusion of marginalized groups, and whether norms can be legitimate without broader moral commitments beyond an agreed compact.