Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:21:02.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Inequalities Not Conceded Yet: A Rejoinder to Gauthier's Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2010

David Braybrooke
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University

Extract

Gauthier's thinking about the social contract continues to develop vigorously. Had I aimed my criticisms at the stage of his thinking that he had reached at the time of his reply to them, rather than at earlier stages already in print, I would have organized my argument differently. Yet the earlier stages were interesting enough—and remain so—to deserve attention for their own sake. Moreover, my criticisms, even as they stand, have some effects that transcend those stages. They undermine the assumption that there is some uniquely attractive principle, whether Gauthier's principle of maximin relative advantage or any other, for determining what bargain is going to be struck on entering the social contract. They also, I persist in thinking, expose the difficulty of bringing home the maximum claims, as matters requiring respect, to agents who may lose out by accepting them as such matters.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 That this is a general effect of my argument is a point on which my thinking has been reinforced by a comment of Gregory Kavka's.

2 See Head, John G., Public Goods and Public Welfare (Durham, NC: 1974), especially Chapter 4,Google Scholar “Equity and Efficiency in Public Goods Supply”, 93–104, at 96–97. To speak of arbitrary stipulation concedes the point of Head's criticisms of the two-step procedure adopted by Wicksell and Musgrave, whom I follow here to give an example of an intelligible principle for which I do not claim unique attractions.