Intro to Ethics - Social Contract Theory (Hobbesian and Rawlsian)

Thomas Hobbes’s “state of nature”

Nasty, brutish, and short. A state of chaos and lawlessness where people compete for survival without government organization

Thomas Hobbes’s moral rules

A mutual protection pact that we agree together on; we adopt these rules because they are to our mutual benefit (i.e. they promote both my self-interest and your self-interest, the agreement = “you don’t steal from me, and I won’t steal from you”

What happens if people started breaking Thomas Hobbes’s moral rules?

It is no longer in my self-interest to agree to them, and it is not wrong of me to break them, according to Hobbesian contractarianism

The moral motive

Self-interest

The “Prisoner’s Dilemma”

A case study in why self-interested cooperation can be hard to achieve in the Hobbesian state of nature; hence the need for a government to enforce the rules, thereby supplying people with additional self-interested reason to follow the rules. Prisoners had the chance to reduce the amount of jail time they received if they picked the same answer. However, they also could save themselves completed if they ratted each other out. If they both told on each other, the jail time increased.

Hobbes lists three “principal causes of quarrel”

Competition for scarce resources, Diffidence (i.e. mistrust), Glory-seeking. Even good people can fall into this.

Advantages of Contractarianism

Explains and justifies the content of moral rules. Explains the objectivity of morality. Explains why it is sometimes acceptable to break the moral rules.

Problem 1 for Hobbesian contractarianism (social contract theory)

The motive for agreeing to the social
contract (namely, self-interest) can sometimes incline one to break the social contract (e.g. upon
finding a wallet of money on an empty bus, say, the social contract says to return it, but self-interest says to keep it)

Problem 2 for Hobbesian contractarianism

Seems to give powerful groups of people no reason to respect the rights of people who are vulnerable and weak; yet isn’t it part of the point of morality to protect the weak from the predations of the strong?

Fix to problem 2

Switch to Rawlsian contractarianism and its veil of ignorance

Rawlsian contractarianism

A theory of justice that aims to establish basic moral principles for social cooperation.

Rawls’s basic ideas

The ideal conception of society = a fair system of cooperation for mutual gain. Principles of justice = the terms of cooperation that would be rationally chosen by free and equal people whose relations with respect to one another are fair. “Terms of cooperation” = principles to govern the design of society’s basic structure (its government, economy, education, and family structure).

Rawls argues for the following principles of justice

The Liberty Principle, The Difference Principle, and The Equal Opportunity Principle.

The Liberty Principle

Each person has an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

The Difference Principle

Social/economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: To the greatest advantage of the least advantaged.

The Equal Opportunity Principle

Attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Rawl’s “the Original Position”

The hypothetical condition in which the social contract is agreed to. A key part of Original Position = “the veil of ignorance”. The veil of ignorance removes potential sources of bias from the bargaining.

Veil of Ignorance

AA hypothetical scenario where individuals, completely ignorant of their own social and personal characteristics, are asked to choose the principles of justice that should govern their society, ensuring fairness by eliminating any bias based on their individual circumstances. They don’t know social position, natural assets, the person’s “conception of the good”, contingent facts about the person’s society

Rawls’s Two Principles

Best case scenario, Worst case scenario. The rational choice.

How is Rawlsian contractarianism similar to Kant?

Since Rawlsian contractarianism emphasizes fairness in addition to self-interest and this justifies the use of the veil of ignorance, it can be thought of as nearer to Kantianism than to Hobbesian contractarianism (you can think of the rules chosen behind a veil of ignorance as = rules that can be consistently willed by all)

How should you reason from behind the Veil of Ignorance?

The most rational way to proceed is to use
“maximin” reasoning —to maximize the minimum possible outcome (to make the minimum possible outcome as good as can be). However, Rawls does not think the Maximin rule is always rational, just sometimes.