PHIL 60/70: Contractarianism: Hobbes & Rawls

It would seem so. Though there is a lot of overlap between legal and moral rules (e.g., it's illegal and immoral to abuse children), the concepts come apart, (e.g., it's immoral break a promise to a friend or cheat on a boyfriend or girlfriend, but those things are not illegal).

Is morality distinct from the law? That is, are moral rules distinct from legal rules?

Western religion: God/divine.

Moral relativists: culture/Individual preferences.

Kant: morality is grounded in reason, moral truths can be deduced like mathematical axioms.

Hume: morality is grounded in human psychology: desire, emotion, and or sentiment.

Sophists (like Thrasymachus): justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger, i.e., might makes right. (Marx echoes this thinking.)

Besides the views of Hobbes & Plato. What are other views about what grounds morality?

In short: what we believe, say, and write is made true by the way the world is. Beliefs and propositions are examples of truth-bearers and are made true by the world, the facts, reality, and or state of affairs, which are truth-makers. For instance, my belief that the Sun is larger than the Earth is true, and it is made true by reality, by the fact that the Sun is larger than the Earth.

What's Mulligan, Simons, and Smith's view on truth-makers vs truth-bearers?

Hobbes: For Hobbes, what grounds morality and makes the State legitimate are human agreements, i.e., the Social Contract (thus morality is human or mind-dependent). This view is called contractarianism. Take the moral belief or proposition that "lying is wrong". That belief or proposition is made true by the social contract, an agreement between humans. (Again beliefs and propositions are truth-bearers and the social contract is a truth-maker.)

Plato: What grounds moral is mind-independent; morality is grounded by the way the world is independently of humans/society. This is view is called moral realism (or moral objectivism). Take a belief that "lying is wrong". That belief is made true by the moral fact that lying is wrong. This fact is a part of the way the world is, a part of reality. Just like there are math and science facts, there are moral facts. None of these depend on humanity.

For Hobbes, what grounds morality and makes the state legitimate? In other words, for Hobbes, what is the truth-maker for moral beliefs and propositions? Contrastingly, what is the truth-maker for moral beliefs and propositions according to Plato's moral realism?

Contractarians argue that morality is mind-dependent, specifically on tacit or explicit agreements. If society or civilization were to crumble like in the walking dead, morality would evaporate, as the agreement would end. Moral realists argue that morality is grounded upon objective (ie mind independent) facts. These facts exist and show up in the world like facts about math or science. Human beings don't 'make' child abuse wrong, it just IS wrong, just like human being don't make water is H2O, it just is H2O.

Explain Contractarianism and how it differs from moral realism

No. Hobbes rejects Plato's moral realism/objectivism. Hobbes denies that morality is human/mind-independent. For him morality is grounded in human/social agreements that evolved into the web of agreements that is our current social contract.

Yes or no: For Hobbes does morality exist outside of the social contract?

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

17th century, English philosopher.

Seminal work: Leviathan

Big idea: The State of Nature in which life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, the Social Contract (the basis of morality and the legitimacy of the State.)

What historical background did we learn about Thomas Hobbes? That is, when did he live, where is he from, and what was his seminal work, and big idea?

The state of nature for Hobbes describes what it was like for humans who lived tens of thousands of years ago in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It's an awful way to live; Hobbes famously described it as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." That is the disadvantage of living in the state of nature; it is living in a constant state of fear, barely surviving among competing selfish, rational, equally able people, who would steal from and kill you if it mean their survival.

How does Hobbes describe the state of nature? (Hint, think about the most famous line in Hobbes' Leviathan.) What is the disadvantage of living in the state of nature?

Absolute freedom, that is, there are no laws, and you can do whatever you can get away with (which is arguably a lot more than you can get away with under a social contract).

What's the biggest thing one gives up for leaving the state of nature?

It's what the world was like for humans tens of thousands of years ago. There is no society. No cities, no government, and for contractarians, no morality (at least for Hobbes).

In general, what is the state of nature?

A hunts 9 lbs/week of food.

B hunts 12 lbs/week of food.

Together they yield 30 lbs/week of food. (I.e., 15 lbs/week each.)

Each hunter needs 10 lbs/week to survive, so each is better off to cooperate.

How did the A/B hunter gatherer example go?

The social contract is a strategy for maximizing self interest. For Hobbes, the social contract is the set of agreements/laws/rules that grounds the State or government. These rules include the 1st amendment and other basic freedoms. They include rules like murder/theft, etc. is illegal. Or that the government will protect its citizens with military, police, and firefighters. That the government will provide public goods like roads, infrastructure, clean water, trash/recycling services, sewage, power grids, utilities etc. That the gov. will provide free and or subsidized education pre-K through 12th and college and subsidized healthcare. Will provide social security. That citizens will abide by these rules and be honest, decent, have integrity, and care for the vulnerable and underserved & represented including children. That people will be free to create, and cultivate humanities, philosophy, and art: performance (music, theater, dance, radio) and visual (painting, drawing, sculpture, photography, film/TV), and literature (novels, poetry). And will be free to pursue sciences and technology. The one disadvantage of living under the contract for Hobbes is that we give up the absolute freedom of living in the state of nature.

What is the social contract for Hobbes? What is the advantage of living under it? What's the disadvantage of living under it?

There are many different versions of the prisoner's dilemma (PD) that have been studied by many different sorts of academics including, economists, psychologists, game theorists, and philosophers. We discussed two versions of the PD. In the first, no communication or agreements are allowed. There are two people: say you and a stranger named Steve. Both of you have been brought in by the FBI to potentially testify against each for a drug crime. (You know you are innocent and you have no evidence either way that Steve is guilty.) You both have 2 options: either testify against the other or stay quiet. If you and Steve both stay quiet, you both will get one year in prison. If you and Steve both testify against each other, then you both get five years. If you testify against Steve and he stays quiet, Steve gets 10 years and you go free. If Steve testifies against you and you stay quiet, you get 10 years and he goes free.

What is the prisoner's dilemma?

Hobbes' state of nature. In both the first version of the PD and the state of nature there are few to no agreements, everyone is rational, selfish, and everyone is competing against strangers to survive. Because of the lack of agreement we are worse off. We are worse off in the state of nature because life is poor, nasty, brutish, and short. We are worse off in the first version of the PD because since both people are rational and want to avoid jail-time they will each testify and both end up with 5 years. (Logically/rationally speaking, it's a no-brainer to testify because regardless of what Steve does, testifying will result in less jail time. Think about it: if Steve stays quiet, then testifying gets you 0 years instead of 1. If Steve testifies, then you testifying gets you 5 years instead of 10.

What did we say that the first version of the PD was supposed to represent?

Life with agreements under the social contract, i.e., life in society. In the second version of the PD we are allowed to talk to and make agreements with Steve, and we can enter into a contract with him. This means we can agree to both stay quiet, which makes life better. Life is better under the social contract, too; we can cooperate and live in a safe, more efficient, productive community.

What did we say that the second version of the PD was supposed to represent?

Hobbes' view that life in society and under the social contract is better and that people will honor their agreements is not jeopardized by the Golden Balls defectors. It's a false analogy: the contestants in the game show hardly know each other, which makes it much easier to be deceitful. In real life the agreements made are often with people with whom we know extremely well and with whom there is substantial trust.

We watched clips of the British game show, Golden Balls. The contestants were allowed to converse and make agreements, yet often they would be deceitful; they would promise to split and then steal. This seems to run counter to what Hobbes would say should happen when agreements are allowed. How can we defend Hobbes in light of these Gold Balls 'defectors'?

For Hobbes the contract evolved slowly over time organically and we tacitly agree just with our participation in society. For Rawls, the social contract is a hypothetical.

Is the social contract real/historical or hypothetical. Is it tacit or explicit? What does Hobbes have to say? What about Rawls?

Actual historical contracts have often been racists, sexists, discriminatory, and biased in all sorts of ways, e.g., slavery, apartheid, women not being able to vote, Jim Crow laws, bans on gay marriage.

What's the problem with actual/historical social contracts?

Yes, let the contract be written by those behind Rawls' veil of ignorance in the 'original position'. They are ignorant of their sex, gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc. Their decisions will be dispassionate, impartial, rational, etc.

Is there a solution?

There seems to be an epistemological (or knowledge) problem, that is, it isn't clear or obvious what the hypothetical or ideal social contract would look like. I.e., we don't really know what it would say; we can only make an educated guess, which might lead to a lot of disagreement.

What's the problem with ideal social contracts?

Intuition: helping others is good for its own sake (and just not good instrumentally).

Hobbes: helping others is only good instrumentally (and not for its own sake).

In other words there's a motivation problem for Hobbes: We are doing good things but for the wrong reason. You shouldn't, e.g., help the poor just because the social contract says so or just because it indirectly is in your self-interest. You should help others like the poor because this is inherently good.

Why does Hobbes' theory have a problem with helping others?

Contractarians claim that the initial contract must be made fairly. But fairness doesn't exist until the contract is made. Fair by definition is just abiding by the contract or acting in accord with contract. How can we act in accord with something before it's written? Think about, a dialog between people about to write the original social contract. One person says, "Whatever we agree to, it should fair." "Yes, someone replies." A third person is puzzled... "Wait, what is 'fair'?" They absolutely have a valid point.

What's the circularity problem for Hobbes?

The initial contract should be whatever maximizes joint interests. So it doesn't need to be fair, it just needs to maximize the joint interest of all parties.

What's a reply to the circularity problem?

First people who are considered to be powerless are often mischaracterized. E.g., give them a level playing field (access, accommodations and they flourish). Second, there is a potential benefit to living in a society that takes care of all. Put a different way, if you could choose a society that lets persons with disabilities fall by the wayside vs. one that enables them (but it will cost you a bit more), people tend to prefer the latter. Also, we could become that way, it could have been us, we might have relatives, we feel good in doing it, and there are stakeholders who do care.

Why might those in protective of rights for persons with disabilities find Hobbes' view unpalatable?What can be said for those who are powerless or who can't hold their weight? What motivation do we have to help them?

There are enough people in the contract who care about animal rights that they will have to be taken seriously.

What can the contractarian say about for animal rights?

Someone like Hobbes has to worry about cases like these. It might be best for them to say this kind of social contract is invalid because the person's poverty makes them too desperate to enter into a contract freely.

Take the case of a very poor person living in a third world country. There is no job for them except working in a sweatshop for slave wages. They 'freely' sign up for the job/enter a social contract, but isn't this really a sort of coercion or being forced?

The saying and the case both suggest that moral human behavior is much more driven by morally arbitrary factors like recently finding change in a phone booth or whether we happened to have a hearty breakfast, and less driven by the goodness of human nature.

In our discussion of human nature, we debated about whether human nature is good (or altruistic), evil (or bad/selfish/egotistical), or neutral. What did the found money in the phone booth case seem to reveal about human nature? What about the saying "Justice is what the judge had for breakfast"?

Hobbes believed that human nature was selfish and he imagined this would be clear if we could witness human behavior tens of thousands of years ago in the state of nature where there is little to no social agreements or cooperation. Rousseau argued that humans are naturally good. He is credited with the notion of the 'noble savage' (though he did not use the term), i.e., a bit like the Navi are depicted in James Cameron's Avatar. The Navi are innocent, live in an untouched, pristine natural setting, and haven't been uncorrupted evils of capitalistic, materialistic, corporatocracy society. Some have criticized this concept as racist, as it depicts 'natives' as unintelligence, naive, and as almost sub-human without a true sense of agency, rights, and personhood.

What did Hobbes and Rousseau have to say about human nature?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was an 18th century French philosopher. One of his seminal works was entitled The Social Contract and he made contributions to political philosophy and contractarianism.

What historical background did we learn about Jean Jacques Rousseau? That is, when did he live, where is he from, and what was his seminal work, and big idea?

Rawls' version of the social contract is one in which people in the initial situation (he calls it the original position) make the contract. These are idealized hypothetical people. They are unbiased because they are behind a veil of ignorance and don't know things like their gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economical status, disability status, religion, country affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. The rules they come up with would be fair because they wouldn't cater to any particular group.

What is Rawls' Justice as Fairness?

1) Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. (Egalitarian.)

2) Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.

What 2 principles of justice would people in the original What principle would those in the original position choose?

The difference principle only allows inequalities that help the worst-off. You must guarantee the worse off a fair deal. Rawls is compensating for moral arbitrary natural endowments (like Michael Jordan)

What is the function of Rawls' difference principle?

Rawls argued, the imaginary parties would adopt what philosophers call the maximum-minimum (or "maximin") rule. Under this rule, the best choice is the highest minimum, which is society A.

Apply Rawls' 'maximin' rule to a choice between two societies:

Society A: average wage of $20/hr & minimum wage of $7/hr

Society B: average wage of $30/hr & minimum wage of $1/hr.

Sandel says that for Rawls distribution of of wealth, should not be based on factors arbitrary from a moral point of view, that is, things that are not your doing, like, e.g. where you fall in a feudal aristocracy, caste-system. So what a 'meritocracy', where its about how much effort that expend. However, even how much effort you put in could be base on factors beyond your control, e.g, birth order and how wealthy your parents are. (Only 3% of student bodies at top colleges are from the poorest 25%.) Effort can be connected to privilege, too (think about the Buzzfeed 'Check your Privilege' activity (https://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/how-privileged-are-you). Meritocracies are only fair if we all begin the race at the same point. But even that isn't fair because of the natural lottery (think of the natural gifts of a Michael Jordan). So to make up for natural gifts do we lead their shoes? No, for Rawls, we can permit, even encourage inequality but only if it helps everyone, especially the least off (often this is in the form of taxes). Rawls system corrects for moral luck in this way.

Watch Harvard Professor Michael Sandel's "A Fair Start" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66zx_6No) and Crash Course's video on "Justice" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0CTHVCkm90." What is Rawls' problem with a system that reward's natural talents? What about a merit-based system? Further, what would Rawls say about the high salaries of Judge Judy, Bill Gates, & Michael Jordan? Can they be morally justified on his view?

Maybe. But what if one student was born without eyebrows or fingers?

Suppose we had a class contest: whoever can pull the most hairs from their eyebrows in 60 seconds wins $500. Does the person who pulls the most hairs out in the time allotted deserve the $500?

This is an empirical question and the answer depends on what sort of correction and how much is done. Perhaps taxing 85% of all income would undermine work ethic. But if you're only taxing 85% of income above 10 million dollars, that may be a different story.

Might correcting for luck or 'things that aren't our doing' or things arbitrary from a moral point of view undermine incentive to work hard? I.e., the Michael Jordans, Bill Gates, Oprahs, etc. will just leave our society?

It's true that it's not your fault that some people are naturally athletic or talented, but similarly it's often not entirely people's fault for being less athletic and talented.

Couldn't a Jordan or an Oprah say "It's not my fault I make millions, the people gave me the ratings and bought my tickets" Why am I being punished for that?

1. The original position may devalue too much compassion, emotion, and partiality. It comes off as a bit cold and without a human touch.

2. Epistemological problem. It's not obvious what that ideal contract would look like, i.e., we don't precisely know what the agreements would be.

What are two problems with Rawls' solution?

The term privilege may be loaded to some but it seems clear that some people's starting lines are substantially behind others through no fault of their own.

What did we learn about privilege from the John Stewart/O'Reilly clip and the race for $100 clip?

Rawls in an American philosopher (1921-2002) who's most famous work is A Theory of Justice. His big ideas were: justice as fairness, the original position/veil of ignorance, and his 2 principles of justice. He taught as a professor for many years at Harvard.

What is John Rawls' historical background?