Abstract

This article discusses some basic assumptions of Ernst Tugendhat’s moral theory. I try to show that Tugendhat’s rejection of a Kantian conception of reason and an unconditional ought is in tension with his criticism of contractualism. Tugendhat argues that contractualism provides a plausible answer to the moral motivation problem, but does not offer a convincing answer to the justification of moral principles. My claim is that Tugendhat’s arguments against contractualism commit him to those Kantian ideas and principles which he criticizes as implausible. Finally, I suggest a way of rejecting a purely self-interest based contractualism that does not commit us to a dogmatic form of rationalism.