Contractualism According to Stuart Rachels

The ethical framework that I personally agree with is rights-based Contractarianism. This theory is subtly different than typical Contractarianism. It holds rights (such as the Bill of Rights, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc.), rather than selfish gain, as the purpose of the social contract. While supporters of Contractarianism believe that a contract should only be obeyed when it is in their best interests, rights-based Contractarianism supporters hold that the social contract should only be obeyed when it is protecting their rights. Thus, the theory can be summarized as: anything that does not violate rights and does not break social contract is ethical. Rights-based Contractarianism has an issue dealing with animals, since they do not possess reason, however, the theory does fulfil the two of the three requirements that Rachels (2019) defines, thus it seems to be the most acceptable theory we have examined in this class.

There is a major criticism of Contractarianism that seems to disprove the theory. The critics claim that, for normal Contractarianism, it cannot explain why we should be moral to those who cannot benefit us and for rights-based Contractarianism, those who do not respect our rights (Rachels, 2019, p. 99). Rachels asserts that oppressed populations, animals, and future generations are all left out of the contract, and since the theory must be impartial for Rachels, the theory is invalid. I think that Rachels criticism is correct against pure Contractarianism, but rights-based Contractarianism fixes the issue. For one, it treats the rights of all humans, alive or yet to be born, equally. As for animals, this criticism is accurate. Contractarianism does imply that humans are the primary being on earth and the only ones to escape from the state of nature. This argument seems convincing: for most of the animal kingdom, morality and sympathy are foreign. However, since we have sympathy, it is not ethical correct to say humans can do anything to animals. Regardless, balanced against how accurate this theory is in other situations arising in the human world, animals can be an acceptation to rights-based Contractarianism rather than its undoing. As Rachels said, we are looking for an acceptable theory, not a perfect one (Rachels, 2019, p. 175).

            Rights-Based Contractarianism is the most acceptable ethical framework not only because its only significant failing is the way it treats animals, but also that it fulfills all the requirements, expect for the ones about animals’ relation to humans, laid out by Rachels (2019, p. 176) for an acceptable ethical framework. The first criterion is that any ethical framework must leave humans as simply an actor, not the center of our ethical framework. Rights-based Contractarianism disagrees, and asserts that humans are special because we are the only one to form a social contract. Animals may have rights, but no reasonable philosopher will claim that the rights of animals are as important or significant as the rights of humans. We not equal. Some rights simply don’t apply to animals, and any rational human would rather have ten of any type of animal die than one human. The first agreement of Rachels’ (2019) conception of the acceptable ethical framework and Rights-Based Contractarianism is their focus on treating people as they deserve. All humans have rights that are obviously violated by prison, such as the right to free movement. However, prisoners did not respect the rights of others, and thus they have forfeited a good portion of their rights. As Rachels (2019, pg. 177) points out, “Human beings are rational agents who can make free choices,” and they should be treated as such. Lastly, rights-based Contractarianism allows for the variety of motives that Rachels (2019) described. Any motive, action, or effect that does not violate the rights of others is completely moral.

            Overall, rights-based Contractarianism overcomes Contractarianism main challenge and fulfills the three criteria for an acceptable ethical framework that Rachels (2019) defines. However, it still has issues, such as how it deals with Animals. Since this class started, I have changed what I perceive to be the most acceptable ethical framework. In my first paper, I agreed with Kant because it seemed to me that the Principle of Universality was a fool-proof method of determining moral actions. However, I have now seen that Kant theory is larger than I though and implies conclusions that I personally don’t agree with, such as lying always being wrong. As a result, I have reevaluated my views and settled on the theory of rights-based Contractarianism

Sources Cited:

Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.