Examlex
T.M. Scanlon: What We Owe to Each Other
In this selection from What We Owe to Each Other, T.M. Scanlon sketches an alternative moral theory to utilitarianism that he calls contractualism. For contractualism, the animating impulse of morality is not maximizing some good like human well-being, but a concern to treat others with the respect owed to them as rational subjects. We accomplish this, according to Scanlon, by conducting ourselves in ways we can justify to others. Right action, in Scanlon's view, is a matter of acting according to principles everyone can accept. Thus when a contractualist thinks about right and wrong, the central question is whether the principles we act on are ones that no one could reasonably reject.
To decide whether a principle can be reasonably rejected, we must assess the principle from the individual perspective or standpoint of those persons in a position to be impacted by its application. More specifically, contractualism requires us to consider whether a principle burdens any individual person with costs more significant than the individual costs imposed by any alternative principle. If it does, then the principle under consideration can be reasonably rejected according to Scanlon. An important feature of this view, and one that distinguishes contractualism from utilitarianism, is that the costs associated with a given principle need not be understood in terms of well-being. On Scanlon's view, an individual may object to a principle on the grounds that it negatively impacts something valuable to her other than her personal well-being, such as fairness.
The selection concludes with an extended discussion of another important feature of contractualism, namely, its rejection of aggregative moral reasoning. For Scanlon, this is an appealing feature of contractualism because it rules out some of the intuitively implausible implications of utilitarianism, for example, that it is morally justified to impose severe harms on a few to produce relatively minor individual benefits if the beneficiaries are large enough in number. Scanlon, however, acknowledges that there are some cases where the right thing to do does seem to depend on the number of people affected. For example, in a situation where we must choose between saving either a larger or smaller group of people from serious injury or death, it seems clear that it would be wrong not to save the larger group. At first glance, it seems contractualism cannot accept a principle requiring us to save the larger group because the individual objections against such a principle would seem to be balanced evenly against the individual objections alternative principles would generate. But Scanlon argues that there is an objection any member of the larger group can make that effectively breaks this tie, namely, that any alternative to the proposed principle would not give positive moral weight to his or her life.
-In contrast to utilitarianism, contractualism:
Salt and Water Balance
The regulation of the amount of salt and water in the body, crucial for maintaining homeostasis and proper cell function.
Protein Synthesis
The biological process by which cells build specific proteins based on the genetic instructions encoded in DNA and mediated by mRNA and ribosomes.
Amino Acids
Organic compounds containing amine and carboxylic acid functional groups, serving as the building blocks of proteins.
Anterior Pituitary
The front portion of the pituitary gland, responsible for producing and releasing hormones that regulate several endocrine functions.
Q1: According to Stevenson, the difference between descriptive
Q7: According to Nietzsche, philosophy has traditionally:<br>A) embraced
Q9: Moore claims that good is:<br>A) simple.<br>B) complex.<br>C)
Q10: Some have claimed that contractualism is objectionably
Q15: According to Arpaly's analysis, Huckleberry Finn's actions
Q23: How does Williams characterize the difference between
Q24: According to Mackie, non-cognitivism and naturalism can
Q25: Sidwick suggests that utilitarians should extend their
Q28: According to Sidwick, utilitarians must confront the
Q32: Annas claims that virtue ethics guides us