Philosophy 160C

Fall 2008
jayme johnson

Handout 6: Rachelss The Elements of Moral Philosophy:
Chapter 10

THE IDEA OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT
11.1 Hobbes's Argument
Background
Humans are by nature social animals
o as well as sensitive & desiring animals (as utilitarianism stresses)
o 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?
o a war of each against all
o death of civilization
o life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"
Four facts which would make it so
o equality of need: we all need the same basic things to survive
o scarcity: limited supply of the essentials -- it ain 't Eden here no more
o essential equality of human power: no one is individually radically superior in
strength or cunning
o 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
o when government breaks down: e.g., Somalia, Lebanon, Bosnia
o international relations
To escape the state of nature requires a social contract to have
o rules to govern relations between individuals
o an agency -- the state -- to enforce the rules: like a referee
Morality consists in the 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 (145) or "the whole set of rules that facilitate social living" (144).
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
o traffic laws: "no left turn on red": a moral imperative?
o trivial laws: the robin shall be the state bird of Michigan
o 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
o essential principles: what has to be agreed to
o 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?
11.2 The Prisoner's Dilemma
Scenario
o you are arrested for treason along with another man (a total stranger) Smith
o you are given the following options
if you confess but not Smith
you go free
Smith gets a 10 yr. sentence
if neither of you confess: each gets 1 yrs.
if both confess: each gets five years
if Smith confesses but you don't
you get 10 yrs
Smith gets 0
o you are not allowed to communicate with Smith
Smith "Confesses" Smith Doesn't "Confess"
You "Confess"
Y: 5 yrs.
S: 5 yrs.
Y: go free
S: 10 yrs.
You Don't "Confess"
Y: 10 yrs.
S: goes free
Y: 1 yr.
S: 1 yr.
Problem
o assuming your goal is just to protect your own interests
o What should you do?
confess
or not
Solution:
o Smith will either confess or not
o If Smith does
then if you do you get 5 yrs
if you don't you get 10
o If Smith doesn't
then if you do you get 0 yrs.
if you don't you get 1 yr.
o Either way, you come out ahead by confessing
o So you should confess
The Catch
o if you both confess you will get 5 yrs
o but if you both hadn't confessed you'd have only gotten 1 yr
o each pursuing rationally pressing their own best interests in isolation
o 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
o people's interests are affected not only by what they do but by what others
do
o 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
o you could choose to either
act egoistically: without consideration for the interests of others
act benevolently: taking others' interests into account
o everyone else simultaneously faces the same decision
o 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
Dilemma & Solution
o Dilemma: the rational thing to do is to act egoistically -- but in this situation
we'd all be worse off than if we cooperated.
o Solution: enforceable agreement to cooperate & "obey the rules" of
benevolence
11.3 Some Advantages of the Social Contract Theory of Morals
Theory: "morality consists in the 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." (Rachels, p. 150)
Has advantages deriving from giving "simple and plausible answers to some difficult
questions about morality
1. What moral rules are we bound to follow and how are those rules justified?
answer: the morally binding rules are those needed or social living
obviously: rules against harming others, e.g., by murder and
theft
more questionably: rules against offending others or for their
own protection, e.g., those against certain "victimless crimes"
2. Why is is reasonable for us to follow the moral rules?
answer: 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
3. Under what circumstances are we allowed to break the rules?
1. answer: 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
explanation of why certain duties (e.g., to lay down your life
to save a stranger) are supererogatory
not warranted under the dilemma calculation since I
don't come out ahead vis a vis the "state of nature"
reasonable expectation of reciprocation breaks down
(since you can't repay the dead)
4. Does morality have an objective basis?
answer: Yes morality has an objective basis in our mutual agreement:
morality = the rules that rational people agree to accept
for their mutual benefit
11.4 The Problem of Civil Disobedience
Under the SCT we have a moral obligation to obey the law based on our contractual
agreement
o We implicitly contract to follow society's rules in accepting the benefits of
social life
Issue: can SCT ever recognize a contrary duty of Civil Disobedience (CD)
o as it should given our intuitively recognized duty --in some instances -- to
break unjust societal rules
as Nuremberg precedents imply
as acts of righteous CD exemplify
pre Civil War underground railway
Otto Shindler
civil rights protests of the 1950s & 60s
CD based objection to SCT: CD will never be justified
o the social contract will be undermined if people are allowed to "pick and
choose" what laws to obey
o so, everyone has an obligation
to obey all society's rules
under all circumstances
Reply: Civil Disobedience requires a good justification (contrary to the "pick & choose"
argument)
o its not just to "pick and choose" as you please to obey the laws you like and
break those you don't
o on SCT I will still be morally entitled -- even obliged, in some instances -- to
disobey
rules my society accepts
which are immoral, i.e., which are not such that
rational people would agree to accept them
for their mutual benefit
Deeper Point available to the disenfranchised (reciprocity again)
o when one is being denied benefits under the contract
o one is correspondingly released from certain obligations under the contract.
Civil Disobedience is not ruled out by SCT
o may be a permissible remedy for those who are being shorted on the benefits
of society
o may be a permissible strategy for negotiating rule changes
if the new dispensation
is better than the old
11.5 Difficulties for the Theory
1. Most Common Objection: SCT is Based on a Historical Fiction
1. Objection: "The Social Contract isn't worth the paper its not written on."
1. never really was a state of nature
2. never was an explicit covenant adopted to get out of it
2. Reply: it's an implicit contract: a tacit agreement
1. not literal historical truth
2. it's as if this were true
3. each implicitly accepts duties making for cooperation in society in
accepting the benefits social cooperation provides
2. More Powerful Objection: denies moral standing to some who can't reciprocate
whom (we think) deserve moral consideration
o nonhuman animals
o mentally incompetent people
o 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.