Phil2030 - Ch14 The Social Contract Tradition: Problems and Prospects

(Conclusion) Contractarianism

Morally is essentially a social matter and is made up of rules that we would accept if we were free, equal, and fully rational.

-Heart of the theory: an ideal social code that serves as the true standard for what is right and wrong

-Offers us a procedure for evaluating moral claims

-Offers the promise of being able to justify even our most basic moral views

-Can explain why we are often bound to obey the law/why we may sometimes break it

-Why we should punish criminals

-Explain why it's usually rational to behave morals

Disappointments:

-leaves open the possibility that immoral actions are rational

-denies the neediest members of our moral community and opens way to their exploitation

Hobbes's Leviathan - Contractarian Aim

-discusses views of the calculating amoralist, whom he terms the fool

The Fool

-admits that breaking promises is unjust, but doesn't care about whether his actions are just or not

-cares only about his self-interest

-keeps his promises when it will do him good

Is it rational to act immorally?

-Hobbes agree with Fool's basic assumption: self-interest is the fundamental reason for acting

-You are rational to the extent that you increase your chances of becoming better off

Hobbes showing that

Acting Morally is always likely to promote self-interest

-Hobbes considers: Fool made a deal with someone and other people has already done his part. Fool keep bargain anyways? Take money and run?

Should Fool Keep His Side of the Bargain?

-Many will say no. Take Money and Run.

-People can get away with IMMORALITY

Hobbes Disagrees. He allows people to sometime get away with INJUSTICE, but that doesn't make it rational to act unjustly.

** Unjust acts are only rational only if they increase the likelihood of personal gain (and Hobbes says that they never do) **

People can sometimes get away with injustice but the chances of doing so are never good so injustice is never rational

Defending Hobbes's Conclusion

-raise the probability of divine wrath

---if you are immoral, then God is going to punish you, and no matter the worldly riches you're after, they simply aren't worth that misery

-Hobbes tossed this aside because Fool has no God in his heart. Divine wrath isn't going to work.

Free-Rider Problem

Lots of folks are cooperating in a way that brings some common good. So long as enough people are chipping in, this benefit can be enjoyed by all -- even those who refuses to help out.

-getting a free ride by exploiting efforts of others, without making sacrifices themselves

Ex:

-Keeping park clean

-Maintaining decency in society

-Democratic elections

-Eliminating diseases

-Secure national defense

>>These can only be achieved if people are contributing to them, involves sacrifice

Hobbes don't assume that we are generous and public-minded. He is trying to show the person who is entirely self-interested why it would a good bet to do his fair share

We/Hobbes might argue:

1. risks of doing wrong always outweigh its potential benefits, but this is mistaken.

---cases where chances of being found are low/punishments are mild

Rationality for Hobbes

all about how much gain you can reasonably expect from an action, injustice can sometimes be highly rational

*What Hobbes could say is that it's never rational to behave unjustly in a well-ordered society

-such a society offers reliable threats against breaking mutually beneficial rules

Hobbes's Rationality

Maximizing the chances of doing well for yourself -- how Hobbes can show that injustice is always irrational

1. No matter who you are, or what circumstances you find yourself in, it's aways rational to act justly

----> Hobbes can't defend claim 1

2. It's always rational to be a just person -- the sort of person who values fairness, approves of just policies, tries to live an upright life, and becomes upset when learning of injustice

----> says that it is rational to be a virtuous person

----> in the long run, just people are more likely to do better for themselves than unjust people

3. For Just people, it is always rational to act justly

Marlene Garcia-Esperat

-Journalist investigating corrupting in the Philippine Department of Agriculture

-Killed in 2005 in front of her children

Social V Other Contracts

duties it imposes and benefits it creates

Have we actually promised to live up to any social contract?

The Pilgrims did -- Mayflower Compact in 1620

Ancient Athens were asked if they were going to be loyal or leave

Tacit Consent

haven't signed anything, but expressed allegiance through silence and a lack of opposition to the government

-When I ask my class if its ok to move on to a new topic, but reply indicates yes

Signal consent to govt's law by staying put, not calling for overthrow, continuing to reap the benefits of civilized society

Tacit Consent Problematic

Some people loud call for revolution: they are not tacitly consenting to obey the law

-some find it hard to voice opposition freely

Defender of Tacit Consent

if people were rational, and saw the horrors of the state of nature, they would agree to being governed under the present terms, even if theyre not ideal

Consent Argument

1. We have a duty to obey the law only if we have consented to do so

2. Many have not given their consent to obey the law

3. Therefore, many people do no have a duty to obey the law

1. We have a duty to obey the law only if we have consented to do so

pg 211 (For:) Essential part of govt is its power to force its people to do what it says, but as a general matter, it is wrong to coerce people without their consent. Why should it be any different when the threat is coming from the govt rather than a private citizen

(Against:) You hate your country and reject its basic laws. You remain because govt won't let you leave/better countries won't let you in. If you truly do not consent to your govt's authority, does that mean you have no duty to obey its rules?

>>plausible to suppose that we are morally required to do only what we agree to do?

Contractarianism would be in trouble if it claimed that our moral duties apply only to those who accept them.

BUT IT MAKES NO SUCH CLAIM

-Social contract is not one that we actually have to consent to.

-Rather, it is one that we each would agree to were we all free and rational and seeking terms of mutually beneficial cooperation

-It provides a way to evaluate society's actual rules, by seeing how close (or how far) they are to the ideal social code that would be adopted if we were free, more equal, and more rational than we are

What if people disagree with one another?

Rawls solved this problem by making every contractor a clone of every other.

Behind veil of ignorance, all of you distinguishing features go away. No one is any different from anyone else. And so there is no reason to expect any disagreement

Hobbes and others can't accept veil of ignorance

Why should I follow the rules of someone who is so completely unlike me -- a person who is not only absolutely rational but also stripped of all knowledge of his social status, his friendships and family situation, his desires, interests, and hopes

**Hobbes and others insists moral rules are those that we, SITUATED AS WE ARE, would rationally agree to, provided of course that others would agree to live by them as well*

Disagreement among contractors

Rawls - fairer; info that could prejudice our choices is kept from us as we select rules to live by

Hobbes - we want to make it rational, if we can, for everyone to live by the moral rules.

Scope of Moral Community

Utilitarians - anyone (or anyone animal) who can suffer harm

Kantians - anyone who is rational and autonomous

Contractarians - ANYONE WHOSE SELF-INTEREST ARE PROTECTED BY RULES THAT CONTRACTORS WILL AGREE UPON

-Contractors are rational and self-interested

Why assume they are self-interested?

1. Being self-interested is not the same thing as being selfish.

Being self-interested is having a strong concern for how well you are faring in life

Being Selfish is placing far too much importance on your own well-being relative to the interest of others

Should we think of contractarians as being generous, benevolent, and self-sacrificing?

NO. By assigning such virtues of contractors, social contract theorists could be accused of stacking the deck in favor of moral principles that we already agree upon. Attraction of proceduralism would be lost by making assumptions of what's wrong or right

-the assumption is that everyone is to some degree self-interested, and that it is rational to be that way

If you are choosing from a position of equality, are free and highly rational, with a healthy dose of self-interest, who will you assign rights to?

People like yourself

Contractarians -- those free, equal, and rational people engaged in the project of negotiating rules to live by -- are the ones who will receive special treatment

Contractarian defining features

First:

- both potential threats and potential benefactors

- they can return our good deeds, but can also dish out some nasty treatment in response to being harmed

Second:

- they are, fundamentally, our equals

- they have roughly the same powers as we do, including power to help us and hurt us

Third:

- we must be unable to gain anything from them without their consent

- we must enter into agreements with them in order to gain benefits from the, and protection against them

Membership in the Moral Community

- limited to contractors

- Hobbesian view of rationality: sacrifice requires compensation

-When we escape the state of nature, we give up many great freedoms for a promise of a better life -- being able to trust and rely on others

If we can get what we really want, without having to sacrifice anything, then why should we make the sacrifice?

-If Hobbes is right, there is no answer to this question. There is no reason to make a sacrifice

-We can get what we want from trees, animals, very weak without having to give up anything in return. So we don't have a reason to treat such beings with respect. They don't meet the conditions to be a contractor.

We COULD decide to be nice to them -- we could choose to let a chicken live rather than kill and eat it. Or we could choose to let a lab rat go instead of performing painful experiments on it.

But that describes charity. It isn't our duty. We have no duties to such vulnerable beings because our duties are limited to *contractors -- those we have reason to respect because they can harm us if we don't and can benefit us if we do.*

-limited to contractors because they are the only ones with whom it is rational to enter a social contract

-For other beings, we'd be giving something up (freedom to exploit them) without gaining anything in return ---according to Hobbes this is irratinal

*contractor*

those we have reason to respect because they can harm us if we don't and can benefit us if we do.

Membership in the Moral Community is limited to contractors

-you get moral status, have rights, and are owed respect just in case your cooperation is needed in order for others to benefit.

-you have to be a member of the social contract in order to have genuine moral importance

-plants/animals/very weak aren't members because we can use them as we like

Contractarian Contract

-offers no secure protection for the truly vulnerable

-We could offer them protection, but reason does not require us to do so since we can get what we want from them without having to sacrifice anything in return

Morality of the social contract view

-Comes of rules of beneficial cooperation that rational parties would agree to

Example:

-Rational, all powerful aliens wouldn't agree to limit their liberty in exchange for anything we might do for them since we can't hurt them and they can get whatever they want from us without having to give up anything on their end

If the social contract theory is correct

Animals, ecosystems, infants, and the severely retarded are in the same position as we readers are in the fictional example.