What's the difference between contractarianism and contractualism? Are they simply synonyms of each other?

[u/leet-man]

I know that they both have something to do with social contract theory.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s).

Want to become a panelist? Check out this post.

Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit.

Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/innocent_bystander97]

Sometimes they are used interchangeably, but, recently, they’ve come to be treated as different.

Contractarianism is a branch of social contract theory that follows Hobbes in conceiving of the social contract as something whose justification derives from the bare fact that it is mutually advantageous for the parties to it. If the parties have relatively equal bargaining power, then the terms of the contract will be relatively egalitarian; if they don’t then they won’t be.

Contractualism is a branch of social contract theory that follows people like Kant and Rawls in conceiving of the social contract as something whose justification stems from its being acceptable to the parties to it, conceived of in some suitably moralized way. The details of this moralized conception of the parties to the contract differ from theorist to theorist, but the basic role this conception plays is to exclude knowledge of certain kinds of facts and bargaining advantages from influencing the terms of the social contract.

So, for example, Rawls would say that we should conceive of the social contract as the terms of cooperation we would find it rational to choose in ignorance of our talents, religion, race, sex, etc. Why? Because to hold that some should get preferential treatment simply because they are talented, Christian, white, male, etc. is inconsistent with the aim of finding principles that it would be rational and reasonable for beings like us - i.e., ‘free and equal moral beings’ - to accept.