Rachels chapter 11 The idea of a social contract
SOCIAL CONTRACT
THEORY
Thomas Hobbes
(1588-1679);
1645-9 English Civil
War Bloody overthrow of the government by Cromwell.
Levithan: Biblical
sea monster. Great artificial being of the COMMONWEALTH.
When humans don’t
cooperate, allow individualism to rage, are in the STATE OF NATURE
Results in a
constant state of war that no one can win. To escape the state of nature, we
need to cooperate. Need 2 basic assurances: 1) guarantees that people won’t
harm each other; 2) guarantees that people will keep their agreements
ENTERING INTO THE
SOCIAL CONTRACT PROVIDES THESE GUARANTEES, and provides a way out of the state
of nature.
A. A set of rules
that people agree to for mutual benefit, which governs relations with others
B. STATE exists to
enforce the terms of the contract
C. Morality = set of
rules which makes social living possible
D. People only have
moral standing within the contract
PRISONER’S DILEMMA:
The point: we would be better off if we cooperated!
4 options:
A. Your partner does
not confess, but you do: You go free, he gets 10 years
B. Your partner
confesses, you don’t: you get 10, he goes free
C. Both confess:
Both get 5
D. Neither confess:
Both get a year
Either your partner
will confess or he won’t.
If he does: And you
don’t, you get 10; and you do, you get 5. So you should confess.
If he doesn’t: And
you don’t, you get a year; if you do, you go free. So you should confess.
Upshot: Whatever
your partner does, confessing is in your best interest.
BUT: Your partner,
using this same logic, will also see that confessing is in his best interest.
SO: You both get 5.
However, HAD YOU MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH HIM, YOU WOULD BOTH HAVE BEEN BETTER
OFF. You could have agreed that neither of you would confess, and both gotten
one year instead of five.
Rachels’ point:
society is like this. We would all be better off if we cooperated.
4 ways society could
work:
You Others Situation
1. Egoistic Benevolent Free
rider
2. Benevolent Benevolent Ordinary
Morality
3. Egoistic Egoistic State of
Nature
4. Benevolent Egoistic Sucker!
EITHER people will
respect your interests or they won’t
If they do: you’re
better off being an egoist (situation 1)
If they don’t:
You’re still better off being an egoist (Sit 3 vs 4)
So it’s in your best
interest to be egoistic regardless of what others do
PARADOX: Doing
what’s best for you leaves you worse off (#3) than cooperation would (#2).
You’re best off by agreeing not to be egoistic.
THE SOCIAL
CONTRACT IS LIKE THIS. Get what’s best for all by agreeing not to be egoists.
Self-group: Explain
2 advantages of SCT (p. 152-54)
1. SCT explains
which rules are REALLY moral rules. Only the ones necessary for social living.
2. SCT gives us a
motive to be moral. We want to preserve the contract that protects us.
3. SCT explains when
we can break moral rules
a. when someone breaks the agreement, ie, a criminal. Criminals release
us from our obligations to treat them well
b. when obeying the rules leaves you
as bad or worse off than the state of nature.
“We may not expect a sacrifice so
profound that it negates the point of the contract.”
4. SCT provides an
objective basis for morality, one that is pragmatic and straightforward.
A difficult issue
that SCT handles well: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
Let’s say that
you are one of a group of African-Americans. As a group, you go to an all-white
lunch counter, and break segregation laws by sitting at the counter, despite
being asked to leave by police.
What do you think a
UT would say about the morality of this action?
How about a Kantian?
Any thoughts on what
SCT might say?
The whole point of entering into
the social contract is so that you and everyone else will be better off. You
give up the freedom to freely pursue your interests, and gain benefits in
return. However, what if you are giving up this freedom, but not getting the
benefits promised by the contract? THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT ARE NOT BEING
HONORED. Some are accepting the burdens of the contract, but not getting
benefits. Hence, they are released from the contract, and are not bound to
honor its (unjust) laws.
So, SCT explains why
civil disobedience is morally permissible.
Problems with the
theory:
1. Based on
historical fiction
Reply: implicit
agreement. We imply that we agree by participating in civil society.
2. Beings who cannot
enter into contracts are left out, and so have no moral standing
Animals
Mentally deficient
humans
An added one:
3. What about
personal relationships?
You treat your kids
well b/c you have entered into a contract? No, b/c you love them, right? A
contractarian view cannot capture ethics of personal relationships.