Arguments Against Contractarianism

In this essay, I hope to argue that contractarianism is a very demanding moral theory because only by submitting to stringent requirements will a contractarian bargainer be able to gain any of the benefits the social contract is capable of giving. As I talk about contractarian beliefs and how it holds up as a moral theory, I do only address Hobbesian contractarianism, as opposed to other types of contractarianism. After providing a brief summary of contractarianism, I seek to argue that rules a contractarian bargainer would agree to would be rules that would result in them achieving their own best interests, so long as everyone else follows the same precedent. Contractarianism was created out of the belief that humans are, by nature, nasty. Hobbes outlined a “state of nature”, a life condition in which individuals are not limited by anything except their minds. While this means that it gives them the freedom to pursue anything that maximizes their utility, it does not stop individuals from doing anything possible to prevent others from getting in the way of their desires. People even have the freedom to harm anyone that might get in the way of hindering their total freedom. Despite the appeal of a world without rules to some, this “state of nature” …show more content…
It proves to be very difficult to implore people to live together harmoniously without having to care for one another a certain degree. However, no contractarian bargainer would agree to complete altruism. Using rational thought, bargainers could conclude that it is easier to accomplish tasks with help from multiple people as opposed to just one person. Contractarian bargainers agree to communal living and, if needed, helping others so long as it will lead to them being able to maximize their own utility. To that end, the social contracts allow for humans to be egoistic so long as it allows for individuals to cooperate with other contractarian