The following text discusses ethics.
Contractualism, as developed by T.M. Scanlon, grounds morality in principles that cannot reasonably be rejected. An action is wrong if forbidden by principles that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for general agreement. Unlike utilitarianism, which permits sacrificing individuals for aggregate benefit, contractualism treats each person as a possible objector whose reasonable rejection matters. The question is not "does this maximize good?" but "can everyone endorse these principles treating them as ends, not means?" Critics argue "reasonableness" is vague, but Scanlon contends this captures how moral thinking actually works.
What distinguishes Scanlon's contractualism from utilitarianism?
Contractualism seeks to maximize aggregate welfare
Contractualism treats each person's possible objection as significant, not just aggregate outcomes
Utilitarianism prioritizes individual consent over group benefit
Both approaches are identical in their conclusions
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Unlike utilitarianism which allows sacrificing individuals for aggregate benefit, "contractualism treats each person as a possible objector whose reasonable rejection matters."
- Evidence: Each person can object; reasonable rejection matters.
- Reasoning: Individual perspectives, not aggregate calculation.
- Conclusion: Individual objection significance distinguishes the approach.
Choice A is incorrect because that describes utilitarianism. Choice C is incorrect because utilitarianism accepts sacrifice for aggregate good. Choice D is incorrect because they can reach different conclusions.