¹ For example, would we be entitled to steal an eye from a sighted person if it could be used to make a blind man see?

² Binmore, K., Just Playing: Game Theory and the Social Contract II, Cambridge, MA, 1998Google Scholar.

³ Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, Harvard, 1971Google Scholar; Harsanyi, J., Rational Behaviour and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations, Cambridge, 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ The first volume of Game Theory and the Social Contract appeared in 1994 with the subtitle Playing Fair. The second volume will appear in 1998 with the subtitle Just Playing: see n.2 above.

⁵ Diamond, P., ‘Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics and Interpersonal Comparison of Utility: Comment’, Journal of Political Economy, lxxv (1967)Google Scholar.

⁶ Hume, D., A Treatise of Human Nature, 2nd edn., ed. Selby-Bigge, L. A., rev. Nidditch, P., Oxford, 1978 (first published 1739)Google Scholar.

⁷ See e.g. Isbell, J., ‘A Modification of Harsanyi's Bargaining Model’, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, lxvi (1960)Google Scholar; Kalai, E., ‘Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons’, Econometrica, xlv (1977)Google Scholar; Myerson, R., ‘Two-person Bargaining and Comparable Utility’, Econometrica, xlv (1977)Google Scholar; Peters, H., Bargaining Game Theory, PhD thesis, Proefschritt Universitat Nijmegen, 1986Google Scholar; Raiffa, H., Arbitration Schemes for Generalized Two-person Games, in Contributions to the Theory of Games II, ed. Kuhn, H. and Tucker, A., Princeton, 1953Google Scholar; Roth, A., Axiomatic Models of Bargaining, Berlin, 1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Aristotle, , Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Irwin, T., Indianapolis, 1985Google Scholar.

⁹ For example, Adams, J., ‘Towards An Understanding of Inequity’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, lxvii (1963)Google Scholar; Adams, J., ‘Inequity in Social Exchange’, in Advances in Experimental Social Science, vol. II, ed. Berkowitz, L., New York, 1965Google Scholar; Adams, J. and Freedman, S., ‘Equity Theory Revisited: Comments and Annotated Bibliography’, Advances in Experimental Social Science, vol. IX, ed. Berkowitz, L., New York, 1976Google Scholar; Austin, W. and Hatfield, E., ‘Equity Theory, Power and Social Justice’, in Justice and Social Interaction, ed. Mikula, G., New York, 1980Google Scholar; Austin, W. and Walster, E., ‘Reactions to Confirmations and Disconfirmations of Expectancies of Equity and Inequity’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, xxx (1974)Google Scholar; Baron, J., ‘Heuristics and Biases in Equity Judgments: A Utilitarian Approach’, in Psychological Perspectives on Justice: Theory and Applications, ed. Mellors, B. and Baron, J., Cambridge, 1993Google Scholar; Cohen, R. and Greenberg, J., ‘The Justice Concept in Social Psychology’, in Equity and Justice in Social Behaviour, ed. Cohen, R. and Greenberg, J., New York, 1982Google Scholar; Furby, L., ‘Psychology and Justice’, Justice: Views from the Social Sciences, ed. Cohen, R., Cambridge, MA, 1986Google Scholar; Homans, G., Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms, New York, 1961Google Scholar; Mellers, B., ‘Equity Judgment: A Revision of Aristotelian Views’, Journal of Experimental Biology, ci (1982)Google Scholar; Mellers, B. and Baron, J., Psychological Perspectives on Justice: Theory and Applications, Cambridge, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Messick, D. and Cook, K., Equity Theory: Psychological and Sociological Perspectives, New York, 1983Google Scholar; Pritchard, R., ‘Equity Theory; A Review and Critique’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, iv (1969)Google Scholar; Wagstaff, G., ‘Equity, Equality and Need: Three Principles of Justice or One?’, Current Psychology: Research and Reviews, xiii (1994)Google Scholar; Wagstaff, G., Huggins, J. and Perfect, T., ‘Equal Ratio Equity, General Linear Equity and Framing Effects in Judgments of Allocation Divisions’, European Journal of Social Pschology, xxvi (1996)Google Scholar; Wagstaff, G. and Perfect, T., ‘On the Definition of Perfect Equity and the Prediction of Inequity’, British Journal of Social Psychology, xxxi (1992)Google Scholar; Walster, E., Berscheid, E. and Walster, G., ‘New Directions in Equity Research’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, xxv (1973)Google Scholar; Walster, E. and Walster, G., ‘Equity and Social Justice’, Journal of Social Issues, xxxi (1975)Google Scholar; Walster, E., Walster, G. and Berscheid, E., Equity: Theory and Research, London, 1978Google Scholar. For a user-friendly book in draft that sets the philosophical scene, and reviews the history and current status of modern equity theory, see Wagstaff, G., Making Sense of Justice, Psychology Department, University of Liverpool, 1997Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Smith, A., The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. Raphael, D. and Macfie, A, Oxford, 1975 (first published 1759)Google Scholar; Smith, A., The Wealth of Nations, Indianapolis, 1976 (first published 1776)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Nash, J., ‘Non-cooperative Games’, Annals of Mathematics, liv (1951)Google Scholar.

¹² Harsanyi, , Rational Behaviour, p. 60Google Scholar.

¹³ Elster, J., Local Justice: How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens, New York, 1992Google Scholar; Young, P., Equity, Princeton, 1994Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Yaari, M., ‘Rawls, Edgeworth, Shapley, Nash: Theories of Distributive Justice Re-examined’, Journal of Economic Theory, xxiv (1981)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Even if one rejects my evolutionary approach, it still follows that disputes over policy between utilitarians and egalitarians that do not begin by clarifying how interpersonal comparisons are to be made are pointless, since the argument shows that a standard exists that will lead to their making the same policy recommendations.

¹⁶ de Mandeville, B., The Fable of the Bees–or Private Vices, Publick Benefits, ed. Kaye, F., Indianapolis, 1988Google Scholar. (First published 1714.)

¹⁷ The paper is a compilation from my book Just Playing: Game Theory and the Social Contract II, to be published in 1998 by MIT Press. I am grateful to the Economic and Social Research Council and to the Leverhulme Foundation for funding the research through the Centre for Economic Learning and Social Evolution at University College London.