Review on Morals by Agreement Theory: David Gauthier

Gauthier understands value as a matter of individuals' subjective preferences, and argues that moral constraints on straightforward utility-maximizing are prudentially justified. He argues that it is most prudent to give up straightforward maximizing and instead adopt a disposition of constrained maximization, according to which one resolves to cooperate with all similarly disposed persons (those disposed towards cooperation) and defect on the rest (straightforward maximizers), since repeated cooperation provides greater yields than repeated mutual defection from contracts (as is seen in a basic Prisoner's Dilemma game). In other words, moral constraints are justified because they make us all better off, in terms of our preferences (whatever they may be). A consequence is that good moral thinking is just an elevated and subtly strategic version of means-end reasoning. Morality and the Prisoner’s Dilemma David Gauthier, a contemporary American philosopher, argues in Morals by Agreement that all moral norms and principles must be acceptable to all rational persons. He supports the received view that rational persons attempt to maximize their self-interest, and so moral constraints, to be proper, must be in the self-interest of all people. Gauthier argues that it is rational to accept constraints when such constraints make all better off, as in the Prisoners' Dilemma . In the Prisoners’ Dilemma (which is well studied by game theorists), it is apparent that acting in one’s immediate self-interest sometimes leads to bad results. That is, if everyone acted without regard to the interests of others, all might lose, while if people consider the good of others as well as their own good, all might be better off. Assuming that many such situations exist, and that each can be solved with a moral norm that constrains action, Gauthier recommends a basic morality based on rational self-interest.
Problem of the free-rider But the problem of the free-rider