fulltext - DiVA Portal

There can be several reasans hindering B from striving for justice.He might be scared and scarred or just abstain out of convenience.One important solution is the juridical system that carries most of theburden of keeping A in line with the agreed morality. The citizenscan also agree on taking on a personal burden to proteet the system asan obligation to comply as a witness. To a high degree theresponsibility of retaliation is taken by the system of justice and theeast is shared between citizens. On important issues it is both rationaiand practically possible to maintain justice by such a limited burdenon the citizens, so they will comply. I see no proper place forirrationaiity.Gauthier argues that it is not enough to use strategic moves, butinstead one should make a moralistic finn commitment. Gauthierdisapproves of irrationaiity as weIl as of uncertainty and effects onthe personal reputation as arguments for the commitment. Thebehavior in the situation should be motivated by facts in this situationalone and not by further considerations. Gauthier argues for acalculation of a rationai morality for these stages taken as apackage.Morality orders a categorical implementation of the action justifiedby reason. Then the case is closed. The consequences of the worstalternative in stage 2 - even if most unfavorable - should not bedisbanded.Gauthier (1997) takes a drastic but most instructive example to makehis point: the retaliation to consider is full scale nuclear war.Gauthier sees the rational justification as a calculation of the effect ofthe threat. The expected value of threat with the possibility ofaverting offence and the risk of retaliation is compared with the basecase of B's medium alternative (this being the preferred alternative ofthe adversary). Gauthier wants to evaluate the retaliation package andif found rationai will go for it. If assured destruction has a positiveeffect by significantly redueing adversary aggression at a lowprobability of bringing the world to a nuclear disaster, the retaliationpackage should be taken as a rationai policy. If the adversary thenehooses offenee despite the dire threat of nuclear retaliation, thethreat should be carried through. I think this drastic example deservespraise for being clarifying instead of being dismissed as revolting.Gauthier' s reasoning about retaliation is sound up to a point;rationality gives a stronger foundation for a rule. A position isIII : 19