Abstract

John Rawls, John Harsanyi, James Buchanan and David Gauthier are examined as writers who use rational choice methods and assumptions to work out theories of the just state. Their common claim is to have developed, from minimal assumptions about rationality and moral agency, normative conclusions that are incumbent upon all rational actors interested in justice. The assumptions and working methods common to them all are identified as belonging to a distinctive style, related to their use of rational choice analysis. While accepting their minimalist premises, their conclusions are rejected as fallacious and dependent upon a particular and unwarranted 'moral-liberal' assumption which they all make. R. M. Hare is also discussed as a writer who has been influenced to a lesser degree by rational choice theory but whose work contains the same fallacy. Finally, a different non-liberal approach to moral agency is sketched out which is still consistent with the model of instrumental rationality which underlies rational choice theory.