Philosophical Studies

, Volume 158, Issue 1, pp 83–107 | Cite as

A Hobbesian derivation of the principle of universalization

Article

Abstract

In this article, I derive a weak version of Kant’s categorical imperative within an informal game-theoretic framework. More specifically, I argue that Hobbesian agents would choose what I call the weak principle of universalization, if they had to decide on a rule of conflict resolution in an idealized but empirically defensible hypothetical decision situation. The discussion clarifies (i) the rationality requirements imposed on agents, (ii) the empirical conditions assumed to warrant the conclusion, and (iii) the political institutions that are necessary to implement the derived principle. The analysis demonstrates the moral significance of the weak principle of universalization and its epistemic advantage over the categorical imperative.

Keywords

Homo prudens Game theory Empathy Veil of uncertainty Weak principle of universalization Categorical imperative 

References

  1. Alexander, J. (2007). The structural evolution of morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aumann, R. (1974). Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 1, 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binmore, K. (1994/1998). Game theory and the social contract (Vols. 1, 2). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Binmore, K. (2005). Natural justice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, J. (1975). The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J. (2004). The status of the status quo. Constitutional Political Economy, 15, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collier, P. (1999). On the economic consequences of civil war. Oxford Economic Papers, 51, 168–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dworkin, R. (1978). Justice and rights. In Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  10. Gaus, G. (2008). On philosophy, politics, and economics. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  11. Gaus, G. (2010). The demands of impartiality and the evolution of morality. In B. Feltham & C. Cottingham (Eds.), Partiality and impartiality: Morality, special relationships, and the wider world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gaus, G. (2011). The order of public reason: A theory of freedom and morality in a diverse and bounded world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gauthier, D. (1969). The logic of Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gauthier, D. (1985). The unity of reason: A subversive reinterpretation of Kant. Ethics, 96, 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gauthier, D. (1993). Uniting separate persons. In D. Gauthier & R. Sugden (Eds.), Rationality justice and the social contract. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gauthier, D. (2001). Hobbes: The laws of nature. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 82, 258–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heap, S., Hollis, M., Lyons, B., Sugden, R., & Weale, A. (1992). The theory of choice—a critical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Hobbes, T. (1651). In R. Tuck (Ed.) (1996), Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hume, D. (1739/1740). A treatise of human nature. D. Norton & M. Norton (Eds.). 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hume, D. (1751). An enquiry concerning the principles of morals. L. Selby-Bigge (Ed.). Revised by P. Nidditch. 1975. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. M. Gregor (Ed.). 1998. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kerstein, S. (2002). Kant’s search for the supreme principle of morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knight, M., Loayza, N., & Villanueva, D. (1996). The peace dividend: Military spending cuts and economic growth. IMF Staff Papers, 43, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McClennen, E. (1988). Constrained maximization and resolute choice. Social Philosophy and Policy, 5, 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McClennen, E. (1990). Rationality and dynamic choice: Foundational explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moehler, M. (2009). Justice and peaceful cooperation. Journal of Global Ethics, 5, 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moehler, M. (2010). The (stabilized) Nash bargaining solution as a principle of distributive justice. Utilitas, 22, 447–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Neill, O. (1989). Constructions of reason: Explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. O’Neill, O. (1996). Towards justice and virtue: A constructive account of practical reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice (revised ed., 1999). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ricardo, D. (1817). On the principles of political economy and taxation. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  33. Schwartz, J. (2010). Do hypothetical imperatives require categorical imperatives? European Journal of Philosophy, 18, 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Skyrms, B. (1996). Evolution of the social contract. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Skyrms, B. (2004). The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. E. Cannan (Ed.). London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
  37. Sugden, R. (1986). The economics of rights, co-operation and welfare (2nd ed., 2004). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Sugden, R. (2001). The evolutionary turn in game theory. Journal of Economic Methodology, 8, 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. White, M. (2004). Can homo economicus follow Kant’s categorical imperative? Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations