Scanlon, as a contractualist, would obviously give the idea of agreement central place, and many comments amply confirm this. This does not mean, however, that he should attempt to designate other notions as irrelevant. Rather, they may find a place in his theory without determining the overall nature or structure of the theory. And this is, I think, exactly his attitude towards the idea of well-being. Consequentialist theories assume that well-being is a ‘master value,’ things are good or valuable only in so far as they contribute to well-being. However, he argues, it is not a master-value. So consequentialism is not a plausible account of our morality.
