Traditionally, T. M. Scanlon’s moral contractualism has been understood in terms of principle contractualism. In an earlier volume of this journal, however, Aaron Salomon argued that contractualists should shift their theory’s evaluative focal point away from principles in order to respond to the ideal world objection. After rejecting act contractualism as an alternative way of doing so, he suggested that contractualists should instead adopt a view he refers to as maxim contractualism. While I a…
Read moreTraditionally, T. M. Scanlon’s moral contractualism has been understood in terms of principle contractualism. In an earlier volume of this journal, however, Aaron Salomon argued that contractualists should shift their theory’s evaluative focal point away from principles in order to respond to the ideal world objection. After rejecting act contractualism as an alternative way of doing so, he suggested that contractualists should instead adopt a view he refers to as maxim contractualism. While I agree with Salomon that his suggestion comes with important advantages, I argue in this discussion note that maxim contractualism cannot fully solve the problem that Salomon has raised against act contractualism. As a result, I conclude that contractualists should not be too quick in leaving principle contractualism behind.
