Laurel Button

Intro to Philosophy

Joel Archer

10 March 2017

Moral Theory as Scientific Theory:

Why Contractualism is the Superior Moral Theory

Gravity is only a theory, but its the best one we have. In science, a theory is the

explanation of a law; it puts the real world results of an experiment into simple, over-arching

terms. Moral theory is attempting to do the same. If the point of moral theory is to outline the

proper way of determining whether an action is right or wrong, then the theory which most

rationally and realistically determines the morality of an action on repeated occasions would be

the best moral theory, just gravity explains Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation.

Contractualism, the view that what is right or wrong is determined and depends on social

establishments, is therefore the best overall moral theory because time and time again we can

point any and every real world situation and see it applied. Contractualism is the best overall

moral theory because it is the most plausible, the most rational, the most repeated.

Contractualism itself, independent of its basis in Thomas Hobbes Social Contract, seems

to be a combination of both Utilitarianism and Deontology, or at least a more developed version

of the two. Utilitarianism is cause for a brutish life, centered only around pleasure as a source of

morality. If it feels good to you, it is good for you. Every actions morality is defined by its

consequence, meaning the locus of value is the outcome or consequences of the act (Pojman,

611). Deontology, however, is extremely rigid in looking at single actions. An action itself is

either right or wrong intrinsically, unlike in Utilitarianism where there is no such thing as an
acts having intrinsic worth (Pojman, 611). Immanuel Kants Deontology focuses on the

Categorical imperatives, the first that if we cannot consistently will that everyone would do

some type of action, then that type of action is morally wrong, (Pojman, 617) and the second, to

refrain from using a person as a mere means (ONeill, 2). Contractualism takes the most

reasonable parts of both Utilitarianism and Deontology and adds in the plausible flexibility

required by humanitys inherent selfishness or, as Thomas Hobbes puts it, psychological

egoism.

Contractualisms draw is that it resonates with the basic instinct that people act in self-

interest. Contractualism, therefore, agrees not only with Utilitarianisms idea that we ought to do

what feels good, but also with Deontologys principle concept that we have a duty to do what is

right, in this case what the law dictates is right, though not regardless of consequence. Because

of the concept of psychological egoism, the idea that people always act in their own self-interest

in order to obtain gratification and avoid harm, we can see that Contractualism abides by Kants

first Categorical Imperative while mildly disregarding the second. Yes, we want things to feel

good as a way to benefit ourselves, but in order for them to be this way, we must compromise

and acknowledge the needs of others, not lay out rules that they have to follow and then ignore

those rules as a benefit to ourselves. We have to act in a way that, if everyone were to act in that

manner, our actions are not undermined. Hobbes whatsoever you require that others should do

to you, that do ye to them (Pojman, 605) is the original treat others how you want to be

treated. However, in compromising, we are consciously using other humans as tools to better

ourselves.

Unique to Contractualism is the idea that law dictates morality, and not the other way

around. Without the Social Contract that we sign every day by obeying the law, the world would
be like the Wild West, where thieves like Jesse James thrived. On the contrary, the world, or at

least society as it pertains to the first world, is not a lawless wasteland, so we must each be

signing that contract, consciously or not. Morality comes from this social contract. In other

words, there is no morality outside the laws that everyone can agree upon. Societal laws tend to

promote the well-being of people: it makes morality tangible, flexible, and the result of social

decisions to compromise, to give in to each other in order to obtain as much happiness and

pleasure as possible. Those who attempt to break the Social Contract are punished, their

happiness stifled or stopped. As Thomas Hobbes said, Covenants, without the sword, are but

words. This is why the Social Contract deteriorates in situations like the aftermath of Hurricane

Katrina; peoples self-interest wins over when there is no one to enact punishment if they cross

the boundaries of compromise.

A common counterargument against Contractualism is that if Contractualism were true,

then there is no moral motivation to do the right thing if a person can escape the consequences of

the law. Rather than dispute the soundness of the argument, I move that this is actually an

argument for Contractualism. Again, Im asserting that the best moral theory is one that is

experimentally replicable. I think the idea that people who are able to escape the consequences of

the law have no regard for morality is absolutely commonplace. Take Donald Trump for

example. Trump is a billionaire misogynist who was able to become President of the United

States despite the fact that he was caught on camera bragging about sexual assault, a morally

reprehensible act as prohibited by law. Trump easily escaped the consequences of his actions and

was not punished for this or other similar offenses. Yes, some people believe what he did to be

morally wrong and others that he did nothing inappropriate, but ultimately he was able to escape

the consequences. He actually did escape the consequences. The same can be said for dictator-
type individuals, the irrational creatures [who] cannot distinguish between injury and damage,

(Pojman, 610) who died before the law of the United Nations could catch up with them, like

Fidel Castro or Hugo Chvez (Weston, 10-11). In the end, if you get off scot free, its impossible

to say that what you did was wrong. It is ultimately a case of self-interest prevailing.

Overall, the repeated real world examples of both positive and negative, though

successful, applications of Contractualism make it the obviously superior moral theory. It takes

parts from both Utilitarianism and Deontology, analyzes them, and more eloquently and

accurately uses these points to outline real world guidelines for right and wrong. When people

decide to break from those guidelines, the Social Contract breaks down. These people are

descending from a moral high ground to the State of Nature, where morality no longer exists.

Here, the Social Contract breaks down, but Contractualism itself does not.

Works Cited

Pojman, Louis P., and James Fieser. Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary

Readings. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.

Weston, Anthony. A Rulebook for Arguments. 4th ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2008. Print.

O'Neill, Onora. A Simplified Account of Kant's Ethics. J.E. White ed. St. Paul, MN: West

Publishing Co., 1985.