This paper consists of two parts. In the first half the thesis of contractualism and its justification are presented. Contractualism requires that norms of conduct be based on the agreement of every member of a society. This requirement has two bases. First, ways of life and social systems must be rational; that is, be assessed and founded on the most thorough understanding possible of human nature and the world. Second, since all human beings are similar, they have similar abilities to understand, and therefore they are equally competent to participate in the judgement of ways of life and social systems. Because of this equality, judgments they can agree to unanimously are probably the most suitable ones that they can reach. If we consider these two bases to be valid, we must accept contractualism. In the second half I try to justify two versions of liberalism from the contractualist standpoint. The first version is derived from a hypothetical agreement: if people accepted contractualism, what principle would they unanimously choose as the basic social rule? Because people have conflicting conceptions of the good and the right, they cannot agree to any particular substantive principles. The best they can do is to recognize a formal principle specifying a decision procedure: majority rule circumscribed by a few rights. The rights would be concerned with freedom from arbitrary rule, equality before the law, and conditional freedom of thought and speech. I call this principle weak liberalism. This would be universally consented to as long as people's substantive ethical conceptions are incompatible. In a weakly liberal society, if a sufficient number of people share a belief in empiricism, the second and more liberal system of norms, which I call strong liberalism, might be established through the procedure specified by weak liberalism. For this establishment, however, it is necessary to interpret empiricism and some facts in such a way that they confirm the equality of humans and freedom from control by others. If the majority approved this interpretation, strong liberalism would be justified.
|
