Contractarianism, which stems from the Hobbesian line of social
contract thought, holds that persons are primarily self-interested,
and that a rational assessment of the best strategy for attaining the
maximization of their self-interest will lead them to act morally
(where the moral norms are determined by the maximization of joint
interest) and to consent to governmental authority. Contractarianism
argues that we each are motivated to accept morality, as Jan Narveson
puts it, “first because we are vulnerable to the depredations of
others, and second because we can all benefit from cooperation with
others” (1988, 148). Contractualism, which stems from the Kantian line
of social contract thought, holds that rationality requires that we
respect persons, which in turn requires that moral principles be such
that they can be justified to each person. Thus, individuals are not
taken to be motivated by self-interest but rather by a commitment to
publicly justify the standards of morality to which each will be
held. Where Gauthier, Narveson, or economist James Buchanan are the
paradigm Hobbesian contractarians, Rawls or Thomas Scanlon would be
the paradigm Kantian contractualists. The rest of this entry will
specifically pertain to the contractarian strain wherever the two
diverge.
While contractualists
justify the requirement of a fair, impartial agreement by reasons
external to the contract, contractarians hold that the success
of the contract in securing cooperative interaction itself requires
that the starting point and procedures be fair and impartial.