Contractualism, as developed by T.M. Scanlon, holds that an act is wrong if it violates principles no one could reasonably reject. Unlike consequentialism, this gives each person a veto over principles that treat them unfairly, even if others benefit. But what makes rejection 'reasonable'? If reasonableness is defined morally, contractualism is circular. If defined non-morally (by self-interest), it seems to ground morality in bargaining, not genuine ethical concern. Scanlon navigates between these by invoking idealized rational agents committed to justifiable relations.
Based on the passage, it can be inferred that
moral theories may need to carefully define their key terms to avoid circularity while preserving moral character
consequentialism and contractualism are identical theories
self-interest is the only possible basis for moral theory
Scanlon embraced the circularity objection
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the best answer. 'Reasonable' must be defined carefully to avoid circularity and preserve morality.
- Context clues: Moral definition = circular; self-interest definition = mere bargaining; Scanlon navigates between.
- Meaning: Defining key terms requires avoiding both traps.
- Verify: The navigation between options shows careful definition is needed.
💡 Strategy: When a term must be defined to avoid one problem without creating another, infer careful definition is needed.
Choice B is incorrect because they're contrasted (contractualism gives each person a veto unlike consequentialism). Choice C is incorrect because self-interest grounding is presented as problematic. Choice D is incorrect because Scanlon "navigates between" the objections to avoid them.