According to social contract theory (SCT),
“morality consists in the set of rules governing behavior, that rational people would accept, on the condition that others accept them as well.”
(Rachels, p. 145)
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
“A State of Nature” = anarchy
Makes life “poor, nasty, brutish
and short”
This is because of 4 features of
the human condition:
· equality of need
· scarcity
· the essential
equality of human power
· limited altruism
In a “state of nature”, there are no social goods… No
Farming
Industry
Education
Housing
Technology
Etc.
….because the social
cooperation needed to produce these things doesn’t exist.
In order
to avoid this fate,
(1) there must be guarantees that people will not harm one
another, and
(2) people must be able to rely on one another to keep their
agreements.
Only a government can provide for
(1) and (2). Therefore, we need a government. In establishing a government, people give up
some of their personal freedom (the freedom of anarchy, such as it is) and give
the government the authority to enforce laws and agreements.
Those living under a government are parties to a social contract. Each person agrees to follow the laws of the
state on the condition that everyone else does the same. That way, we are all relatively safe from
each other and we all benefit from the other social goods that will result.
According to SCT, “the state
exists to enforce the rules necessary for social living, while morality consists
in the whole set of rules that facilitate social living”. (Rachels, p. 144) Thus, government is needed to enforce the basic rules of social
living (e.g. don’t rob people, don’t break agreements), while morality may
encompass some rules that are important for social living but are outside the
scope of the state (this might include, for example, “Don’t insult people for
no reason”.)
You are accused of conspiring with Smith to commit
treason. (see p. 145)
By the argument on pp. 146-7, it is in your self-interest to
confess, even though this isn’t the best possible outcome (you will each do 5
years).
You and Smith would do much better (one year in jail) if you
each do what is not in your own self-interest.
Notice that if you could make an agreement with Smith and knew that it
would be enforced, then it would be rational not to confess, and you will both
be better off. Essentially, this is
what the enforcement of a moral code makes possible. It makes cooperative behavior rational.
The conditions under which Prisoner-Dilemma type situations
arise:
1. It must be a
situation in which people’s interests are affected not only by what they do but
by what other people do as well;
2. It must be a
situation in which, paradoxically, everyone will end up worse off if they individually
pursue their own interests than if they simultaneously do what is not in their
own individual interests.
Example: Suppose you
live in a society that has highly polluting cars. You can install a device that will stop the pollution from your car,
but it will cost some money. If others
use the device, then the air will be clean (your car isn’t going to make the
air very dirty by itself). Therefore,
if others use the device, then it is in your interests not to, in order to save
money. On the other hand, if others
aren’t using the device, then the air will be dirty even if you use it. Therefore, you had might as well not use it,
since you only put yourself at a disadvantage if you do. This argument follows the same pattern as
the Prisoner’s Dilemma argument. Since
everyone can follow the same reasoning, no one will use the device and everyone
will be worse off due to pollution.
Unless, of course, we are all parties to a binding contract which
requires us to use the device so that we all benefit.
According
to SCT, morality is just such a contract.
Imagine that people were living in a “state of nature” as
Hobbes describes. Everyone has an
interest in getting out of this state, for the reasons discussed earlier. Now, suppose that everyone could sign a
contract with each other governing how people are to treat each other. The aim of the contract is to create social
order, ending the state of nature and making it possible for people to
cooperate and produce social goods. In
order for the contract to best achieve its aims, it is important that everyone,
or nearly everyone, to be party to the contract (otherwise we have anarchy or
civil war). So, what things should
everyone (or just about everyone) agree to as part of the contract?
· Protection of life and property. This means there will be prohibitions
against murder, assault, theft and vandalism.
A police force will be needed.
· Other rules needed to secure the benefits of
social living. This means there will be
prohibitions on breaking contracts (e.g. promises) and a general requirement of
truth-telling.
· Protection of society against outside
threats. An army might be needed.
Other important stuff – These are things that,
arguably, should be part of the social contract (i.e. it would in everyone’s
interest to have them included).
However, a society might be able to survive (if not thrive) without
them.
Civil Rights:
· It is in everyone’s interest that the police
and army not take advantage of their power and abuse us. This means that they must follow rules that
protect us. For example, it is in
everyone’s interest to have a criminal justice system that is effective at
prosecuting lawbreakers while at the same time protecting rights of the accused
and providing for fair trials and reasonable punishments.
· Freedom of speech
· Freedom of religion
· Freedom from arbitrary discrimination (e.g.
based on race, gender, etc.)
· Protection of the environment. Obviously, it is in everyone’s interest to
have breathable air and a clean, healthy environment in which to live. Prohibitions against damaging the
environment or claiming it as private property seem to be in order. How extensive this is, though, is
unclear. Also, the self-interested
justification for environmentalism does necessarily cover protecting endangered
species or anything that is only of interest to some people.
Does social contract theory justify the creation of a social
“safety net”?
Those who are well off have no need of welfare, public
education, and government assistance in general. So, on the face of it, it is not in the interests of these people
to pay taxes in order to support government assistance. But the social contract is supposed to be in
everyone’s interest. For this
reason, conservative social contract theorists sometimes argue that a social
safety is not part of the contract.
There are two kinds of replies to this argument. (1)
Some forms of government assistance are in everyone’s interest. Even the wealthy are advantaged by the
existence of public education; they may not go to public schools, but they
benefit from living in a society with a high level of education. (2)
The wealth that people have now depends on the existence of
society. When we ask, “What kind of
contract would self-interest people agree to?”, we do not mean to ask what they
would agree to right now, given that society already exists. Rather, we are asking what people who are on
an equal footing would agree to. People
in such a position might well agree that there should be a social safety net
just in case they end up in need of it.
(This line of argument is central to the liberal social contract theory
of John Rawls)
· Prohibitions on
abortion (because fetuses can’t be parties to a contract)
· Prohibitions on
harming animals (for the same reason)
· Establishment of
any particular religion (it would not be in everyone’s interest to have any one
religion enforced). A possible
exception may exist if there were a society where everyone subcribed to the
same religion.
· Paternalistic
laws. Paternalism: forcing another party to act (or refrain
from acting) because it is believed to be in the best interest of the other
party to do so. Remember, self-interest
is what drives the need for a social contract.
If other people don’t harm you by engaging in a certain type of
behavior, then you don’t have a self-interested reason for banning that
behavior as part of the contract. If
you want to hurt yourself, that’s your business. For this reason, seatbelt laws, laws against taking certain
drugs, gambling, prostitution etc. are all suspect. (That is not to say that they couldn’t be justified, just that
they would not be justified on paternalistic grounds).
· Anti-sodomy
laws. In general, SCT suggests that
personal choices that don’t directly harm others are not subject to legal
constraint. Just about any consensual
sexual practice, for example.
*This list is not complete and may not be entirely
accurate. It can be argued that certain
activities (e.g. drug abuse, animal torture) have negative side-effects that
are harmful to society in general, and so it would be in everyone’s interest to
prohibit them.
· Explanation of Moral Motivation: We can reasonably be expected to follow the
rules because, on the whole, they are to our own advantage. Breaking the rules tends to undermine them
and thereby endangers our own well-being (this much is true even if the rules
aren’t enforced).
· Unlike utilitarianism (or any form of
consequentialism for that matter) SCT does not assume that there is one correct
conception of the good. People can
agree to a social contract because it is rational to do so given that the
contract will help them to pursue the good as they see it, whatever that
happens to be.
· It is rational to obey only on the condition
that others are as well (otherwise we are a “sucker”). This can explain why we treat those who
break the rules—criminals—differently.
“Thus, when someone violates the condition of reciprocity, he releases
us, at least to some extent, from our obligation toward him.” In other words, if you break the contract
then others aren’t bound by it (with respect to your part in it).
· SCT explains why some actions, while
laudable, are considered supererogatory and not morally required (point on p.
151)
· Civil
disobedience. SCT provides a plausible
account of when civil disobedience is justified.
Objections to SCT
· It is based on a fiction: there is no actual contract.
Reply: There may not be a physical, signed
contract, but there is still an implicit contract that we enter into when we
willingly participate in society and enjoy its benefits. Also, even if a state of anarchy existed, it
would still be true that it would be in our interests to form a social
contract. Thus, the justification for
the state, and for morally generally, would still exist.
· The social contract is an implicit agreement
among self-interested, rational agents.
This seems to imply we have no duties to beings who are not able to
participate (even implicitly) in the contract.
Examples: nonhuman animals,
those with mental disabilities.
Those simply outside of one’s society may pose a similar kind of problem. If a social contract is for a given society, then it applies only to its members. Those in other societies would be outside of its bounds. This raises a deep question for Rawls: who enters into the original position in order to decide on the principles of justice? Since the parties are doing so out of self-interest, it does not make sense for the negotiations to include everyone in the world (why would it be in our self-interest to enter a binding social contract with the people of Timbuktu?) People who are likely to affect our lives (by helping us are harming us) are the people we have an interest in contracting with. In some ways this feature of SCT might be viewed as a good thing (it would explain, for example, why many of us do not feel morally obligated to engage in costly nation building). On the other hand, it seems monstrous to suppose that we have no obligations to those outside of our society at all --for example, we agree that we have an obligation not to engage in wanton destruction of other societies.