Premium
Hooker's rule‐consequentialism and Scanlon's contractualism—A re‐evaluation
Author(s) -
Suikkanen Jussi
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
ratio
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.475
H-Index - 29
eISSN - 1467-9329
pISSN - 0034-0006
DOI - 10.1111/rati.12351
Subject(s) - contractualism , consequentialism , normative , originalism , epistemology , philosophy , normative ethics , sociology , law and economics , law , political science , constitutional law
Brad Hooker's rule‐consequentialism and T. M. Scanlon's contractualism have been some of the most debated ethical theories in normative ethics during the last twenty years or so. This article suggests that these theories can be compared at two levels. Firstly, what are the deep, structural differences between the rule‐consequentialist and contractualist frameworks in which Hooker and Scanlon formulate their views? Secondly, what are the more superficial differences between Hooker's and Scanlon's formulations of these theories? Based on exploring these questions and several purported differences between Hooker's and Scanlon's views, this article argues that, at the structural level, the two theories are more similar than previous recognised. It suggests that there is only one candidate for a deeper difference and even it may not be that significant. This insight sheds new light on both contractualism and rule‐consequentialism, and it will also help us to formulate better versions of the views.