Deck 26: David Gauthier

Question 1

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.
-Although Gauthier claims that morality faces a foundational crisis, some claim that morality needs no justification. How does Gauthier respond to this claim? Do you find his argument convincing? Why or why not?

Answer 1

No Answer

Question 2

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.

Answer 2

No Answer

Question 3

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 three strategies for saving morality from the foundational crisis does Gauthier discuss? Which does he think is successful, and which does he think are unsuccessful? Do you agree with his assessments? Why or why not?

Answer 3

No Answer

Question 4

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.
-Who is Hobbes's Foole and how does he raise a problem for contractarianism? How does Gauthier respond to the Foole? Do you think his response is adequate?

Question 5

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 reasons does Gauthier give for his claim that morality faces a foundational crisis? What question does he think that any moral view has to answer? Do you agree that this question raises a serious challenge to morality? Why or why not?

Question 6

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.

Question 7

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?

Question 8

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.
-The morality that Gauthier describes as facing a foundational crisis essentially involves:

A) enlightened egoism.
B) pure altruism.
C) justified constraint.
D) prima facie duties.

Question 9

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 to agents as:

A) an expression of human freedom.
B) constraints on their actions and choices.
C) a means to self-realization.
D) all of the above.

Question 10

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 objects to Hume's characterization of morality as rooted in sympathy on the grounds that:

A) desire is irrelevant to morality.
B) it cannot account for why morality demands that we curb our desires for those we don't care about.
C) it cannot account for the role of reason in ethics.
D) it is trivial.

Question 11

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:

A) moral justification.
B) deliberative justification.
C) epistemic justification.
D) an illusion.

Question 12

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:

A) claims that we have an alternative mode for justifying our choices and actions.
B) argues that because foundationalism is true, morality does need a justification.
C) argues that because foundationalism is false, morality does need a justification.
D) agrees.

Question 13

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.
-An action has deliberative justification if and only if:

A) the agent has carefully reflected on the action and chosen it from a set of alternatives.
B) it maximizes the agent's expected utility.
C) it would be approved by a majority of the members of a society.
D) it is morally obligatory.

Question 14

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 something can be relevant to practical justification only if it relates to:

A) well-being and suffering.
B) fairness.
C) the agent's self-conception.
D) the agent's self-interest.

Question 15

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:

A) is refuted by moral requirements.
B) is replaced once we acknowledge moral requirements.
C) refutes morality.
D) ignores morality and seemingly replaces it.

Question 16

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:

A) this would still not explain why we should obey moral constraints.
B) this would save morality from the foundational crisis.
C) moral justification would be reducible to deliberative justification.
D) moral properties would play a similar role to religious properties.

Question 17

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 defines "utility" as:

A) pleasure..
B) happiness.
C) considered preference.
D) none of the above.

Question 18

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:

A) finding an explanatory role for moral properties.
B) accepting a religious foundation for morality.
C) rejecting the idea of deliberative justification.
D) finding a place for morality within the framework of deliberative justification.

Question 19

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 basis of morality is:

A) maximizing the utility of all sentient beings.
B) God's commands.
C) the agreement of rational persons choosing the terms of their interaction.
D) the purposive order of nature.

Question 20

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:

A) whether they secure actual agreement.
B) whether they secure hypothetical agreement.
C) whether they maximize utility.
D) whether they can be proven by pure reason.

Question 21

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 describes his identification of morality with the agreements of rational persons as:

A) a conceptual analysis.
B) a piece of philosophical anthropology.
C) a rational reconstruction.
D) all of the above.

Question 22

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 content of a hypothetical agreement is determined by appeal to:

A) persons' desire for fairness.
B) persons' desire to avoid exploitation.
C) the equal rationality of persons.
D) the equal intelligence of persons.

Question 23

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 moral language fits a worldview that we have abandoned, according to which the world is purposively ordered.

Question 24

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.

Question 25

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.

Question 26

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.
-An action is deliberatively justified if and only if it maximizes the agent's expected utility.

Question 27

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 we must accept the idea of deliberative justification because there is nothing else for practical rationality to be.

Question 28

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 best way to resolve the foundational crisis of morality is to show that moral properties play an important explanatory role.

Question 29

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.

Question 30

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.
-Pareto-optimality obtains when no one could do better without someone else doing worse.

Question 31

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, a moral practice is justifiable if it would secure our agreement in an appropriate premoral situation.

Question 32

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 only agreements offering equally favorable terms to all will invite stable compliance.