THE IDEA OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT

Hobbes's Argument

Background

Humans are by nature social animals

as well as sensative & desiring animals (as utilitarianism stresses)
as well as rational animals (as Kantians stress)

Source of morality, perhaps, to be found in our social arrangements

Hobbes

Imagine if their were no laws -- what would such a "state of nature" it be like?

a war of each against all
death of civilization
life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"

Four facts which would make it so

equality of need: we all need the same basic things to survive
scarcity: limited supply of the essentials -- it ain't Eden here no more
essential equality of human power: no one is individually radically superior in strength or cunning
limited altruism:

if you don't look out for yourself, no one is going to do it for you.
"Greater love than this has no man, that he would lay down his life for a friend." (my emphasis)

The consequences of anarchy born out in reality

when government breaks down: e.g., Somalia, Lebanon, Bosnia
international relations

To escape the state of nature requires a social contract to have

rules to govern relations between individuals
an agency -- the state -- to enforce the rules: like a referee

Morality consists the whole set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well (143) or "the whole set of rules that enhance social living" (142).

Discussion : too broad even on improved formulation: includes

rules of etiquette: the forks go on the left side of the plate
actual laws: people will agree to these: they have

traffic laws: "no left turn on red": a moral imperative?
trivial laws: the robin shall be the state bird of Michigan
not so trivial laws:

immoral laws e.g. those upholding slavery
essential laws, e.g., against murder & theft

even here we might want to distinguish between the underlying moral principle
and specific details under in law: various degrees of theft & max./min. penalties for each

suggestion: change "will agree" to "need to" agree

essential principles: what has to be agreed to
optional principles:

what side of the road to drive on
what's the cutoff amount for "grand" larceny

Worry: "improved" formulation too narrow: optional principles we think moral?

The Prisoner's Dillema

Scenario

you are arrested for treason along with another man (a total stranger) Smith
you are given the following options

if you confess but not Smith

you get one year in prison
Smith gets 10

if neither of you confess: each gets 2 yrs.
if both confess: each gets five years
if Smith confesses but you don't

you get 10 yrs
Smith gets one

you are not allowed to communicate with Smith

Problem

assuming your goal is just to protect your own interests
What should you do?

confess
or not

Solution: you should confess -- no matter what Smith does

Smith with either confess or not
If Smith does

then if you do too you get 5 yrs
if you don't you get 10

If Smith doesn't

then if you do you get 1 yr
if you don't you get 2

Either way, you come out ahead by confessing
So you should confess

The Catch

if you both confess you will get 5 yrs

but if you both hadn't confessed you'd have only gotten 2yrs

each persuing rationally persuing their own best interests in isolation

prevented both from achieving a better outcome than they might

due to their inability to cooperate

Morality as a Solution to a Prisoner's-Dilemma-Type Problem

The P-D type situation

people's interests are affected not only by what they do but by what others do
everyone will end up worse off if they simultaneously pursue their own interests than if they simultaneously do what is not [would not otherwise be] in their own interests

This is the kind of situation we each face in trying to pursue our interests in the context of human society

you could choose to either

act egoistically: without consideration for the interests of others
act benevolently: taking others' interests into account

everyone else simultaneously faces the same decision
the four possibilities: best to worst

I act egoistically while others are benevolent
everyone is benevolent
everyone is egoistic
I act benevolently while others are egoistic

Dillema & Solution

Dillema: the rational thing to do is to act egoisitcally -- but in this situation we'd all be worse off then if we cooperated.
Solution: enforcable agreement to cooperate & "obey the rules" of benevolence

Some Advantages of the Social Contract Theory of Morals

Simple and plausible answers to some difficult questions about morality

FAQ

Q1: What moral rules are we bound to follow and how are those rules justified?
ANS: The morally binding rules are those needed or social living

obviously: rules against murder and theft
questionably: rules against victimless crimes: e.g., prostitution

Q2. Why is is reasonable for us to follow the moral rules?

in the long run and in general it is to our advantage to live under the contract
our own steady compliance is the reasonable price we pay to secure the compliance of others in this mutually beneficial arrangement

Q3. Under what circumstances are we allowed to break the rules?
ANS: It's a matter of reciprocity

if someone [habitually] violates the agreement then we are entitled to do likewise -- act inconsiderately of their interests -- in return
justification of punishment

serves to enforce the primary rules -- the basic job of society
it is permissible to punish the rule breaker because they have violated the fundamental condition of reciprocity

why certain duties -- to lay down your life for strangers, e.g. -- are supererogatory

not warranted under the dillema calculation
I don't come out ahead vis a vis the "state of nature"
reasonable expectation of reciprocation breaks down

Q4. Are there moral "facts"? Does morality have an objective basis? Are moral judgements objectively true?
ANS: Yes morality has an objective basis.

morality = the rules that rational people would agree to accept
for their mutual benefit

The Problem of Civil Disobedience

Under the SCT we have a moral obligation to obey the law

Contractual basis for the obligation

We implicitly contract to follow societies rules
In accepting the benefits of social life

Question: can SCT ever recognize a contrary duty of Civil Disobedience?

A widely intuitively recognized duty --in some instances -- to break unjust societial rules

Nuremburg precedents
Civil rights movement

Argument: On the SCT theory disobedience is never justified

the social contract will be undermined if people are allowed to "pick and choose" what laws to obey
so, everyone has an obligation

to obey all societies rules
under all circumstances

Reply: Civil Disobedience requires a good Justification: Counter the Argument

its not just to "pick and choose" as you please
to obey the laws you like and break those you don't
rules I may be morally entitled -- even obliged, in some instances -- to disobey

rules my society accepts
which are not moral, i.e., not those

rational people would agree to accept
for their mutual benefit

Deeper Point available to the disenfranchised: Reciprocity again

when one is being denied benefits under the contract
one is correspondingly released from certain obligations under the contract.

Civil Disobedience is not ruled out by SCT

may be a permissable remedy for those who are being shorted on the benefits of society
may be a permissable strategy for negotiating rule changes

if the new dispensation
is better than the old

The Difficulties for the Theory

Most Common Objection: Based on a Historical Fiction

Objection: "The Social Contract isn't worth the paper its not written on."

never really was a state of nature
never was an explicit covenant adopted to get out of it

Reply: it's an implicit contract: a tacit agreement

not literal historical truth
it's as if this were true
each implicitly accepts duties making for cooperation in society in acceptin the benefits social cooperation provides

Chief Objection: Denies moral standing to some who (we think) deserve moral consideration: whoever can't reciprocate

nonhuman animals
mentally incompetent people
outsiders & the weak: especially slaves

institution of slavery a set of rules that enhanced social living
and a very refined Society it was; "so civilized," ah doo declare.
A civilization gone with the wind.