9/26 ethics Contractarianism: Theory, Features, and Challenges
I. Introduction to Contractarianism as an Ethical Theory
Definition: An action is considered morally right if and only if it is permitted by rules that free, equal, and rational individuals would agree to live by, on the condition that others also adhere to these rules.
Methodology for Determining Morality:
Process: When evaluating an action's morality, one must disregard personal moral beliefs and imagine a group of free, rational, and equal people. The question is whether this hypothetical group would agree to adopt a rule permitting the action.
Example: Lying (General Case)
Rule Proposed: "Lie whenever you want."
Hypothetical Agreement: The group would likely reject this rule.
Reasoning: While one might benefit from lying sometimes, universal acceptance would make everyone vulnerable to deception, erode trust, and create a worse living situation for all.
Conclusion: General lying is not moral.
Counter-Example: Lying to a Murderer
Scenario: Lying to a murderer about their target's location.
Rule Proposed: "Lie to protect someone's life."
Hypothetical Agreement: The group would likely accept this rule.
Reasoning: As rational, self-interested beings, members of the group would anticipate potentially being victims themselves and would desire a rule that allows for protection through lying. This rule offers a collective benefit.
Conclusion: This specific act of lying is moral.
II. Key Features and Clarifications of Contractarianism
A. Hypothetical Nature of the Social Contract
Not Historical: The social contract is not an actual historical event where all humans convened to discuss societal guidelines.
Thought Experiment: It serves as a mental exercise, providing a procedure to examine the morality of any action.
Benefits: Allows individuals to step outside their existing moral frameworks and objectively evaluate actions and even society's current moral rules against what free, rational, and equal people would agree upon.
B. Objective Standard
Specific Agreement: Morality is not based on just any agreement, but specifically on the agreement reached by free, equal, and rational people.
Prevention of Subjectivity: This prevents individuals from simply asserting, "I personally agree to these rules, so the action is moral." One must imagine oneself as a member of this specific hypothetical group to determine agreement.
C. Self-Interest Orientation and its Relationship with Ethical Egoism
Hobbes' Position (Clarification):
Not Straightforward Ethical Egoist: For an ethical egoist, an action's morality is determined by whether it directly serves one's self-interest. For contractarians, morality is primarily determined by whether the rule behind an action is accepted as part of the social contract.
** underlying Self-Interest**: However, the decisions made by the hypothetical contractors regarding which rules to accept or reject *are* predicated on whether those rules serve their self-interest. For example, rejecting a rule permitting killing is driven by the desire for personal safety.
Egoist Calculation: The entire process of forming the contract is fundamentally based on an egoist calculation, balancing individual advantages against collective safety.
Ultimate Derivation of Morality: In this sense, morality is ultimately derived from the consideration and promotion of self-interest.
Advantage: This self-interested basis provides a strong motivation for individuals to act morally, as adhering to the social contract's rules is seen as securing a better future for oneself.
III. Problems and Challenges to Contractarianism
A. Lack of Actual Consent
Problem: If no one has ever physically signed this hypothetical social contract, what gives it binding force or obligation over individuals?
Comparison to Real Contracts: Real-world contracts (e.g., employment agreements) create obligations because they are explicitly agreed upon and signed. The social contract lacks this explicit consent.
B. Problems with the "Contractors" and their Agreement
Assumptions about Contractors: The theory posits contractors as self-interested, rational, free, and equal. The question arises: Why should we accept these specific characteristics as the fundamental nature of human beings or as the initial condition? (Why \ should \ we \ accept \ P_{\text{contractors}})? .
Disagreement Among Contractors:
Scenario: Hobbes assumes contractors reject killing because the risk of being a victim outweighs the potential advantage of killing. However, what if a rational, self-interested individual (e.g., a "social Darwinist") believes the strong should rule? Such an individual might be willing to accept the risk of being weak if there's a chance to be strong and dominate. This doesn't necessarily make them irrational.
Implication: People hold diverse moral intuitions, which could prevent them from reaching a common agreement on all rules. How would morality be evaluated in such cases of fundamental disagreement?
Neglect of Important Moral Issues:
Scenario: Even if contractors do agree, their self-interested nature might lead them to overlook or ignore morally significant issues.
Example: Animal Ethics: Contractors would logically reject cannibalism (as they wouldn't want to be eaten). However, their self-interest might lead them to find no problem with eating non-human animals, as animals pose no direct threat to their self-preservation goals.
Implication: This theory might fail to address contemporary moral concerns, such as the moral status of animals, because such issues do not directly impact the self-interest of the hypothetical contractors.
C. The Free Rider Problem
Core Challenge: If the primary motivation for morality is self-interest, what if an individual can achieve self-interest more efficiently by benefiting from a system without contributing to it?
Definition: A free rider exploits common goods or benefits produced by the contributions and cooperation of the majority, without making their own contribution.
Traffic Example:
Scenario: Most drivers patiently wait in line, contributing to orderly traffic. One driver cuts to the front.
Benefit for Free Rider: The free rider saves time and benefits from the system's order without incurring the cost of waiting.
Hobbes' Anticipated Responses and Critiques:
Response 1: Risk of Punishment: Free riding is risky because one could be punished.
Critique: Punishment might be a minor deterrent for certain individuals (e.g., a millionaire whose fine is negligible compared to their gains). The benefits might still outweigh the costs for them.
Response 2: System Collapse: The free rider's example could encourage others, leading to system collapse.
Critique: A single, minor violation in a large society is unlikely to cause a complete system collapse. Furthermore, many people naturally contribute out of kindness, ensuring some level of stability.
Fundamental Dilemma: If contractarianism justifies obeying rules as the most efficient path to self-interest, and a free rider discovers an even more efficient path to self-interest (by exploiting the system), then free riding appears permissible, or even logically required, under the theory's own premises.
IV. Open Discussion Points and Student Questions
A. Questions for Further Consideration
How can contractarianism adequately respond to the documented problems: lack of actual consent, potential disagreements/neglect among contractors, and the free rider problem? Are direct responses sufficient, or does the theory require revision?
Are there other potential limitations or problems with contractarianism not yet discussed?
B. Student Contributions and Responses
Student 1: Individuals Operating Outside the Contract
Observation: Many individuals (e.g., psychopaths, sociopaths, those with dementia) act outside social norms and arguably the social contract. This suggests the theory's assumption that everyone is born with an understanding of the contract or social norms is flawed.
Implication: Does this inability to comprehend the contract automatically render their actions immoral? Or does the theory simply not apply to them?
Student 2: Free Rider Problem - "No Participation, No Application"
Argument: If free riders never participated in the contract, then the theory doesn't apply to them.
Lecturer's Counter: What happens if widespread free riding collapses the system?
Student's Rebuttal: Society still functions despite some free riders. As long as the number of free riders remains low, the system can endure.
Student 2 (Further): Consent and Physical Contracts
Analogy: If a physical contract is destroyed, it's no longer binding.
Assertion: "Too bad. Nobody cares about consent. We're already in it." The social contract exists implicitly, and merely being in society obligates individuals. Therefore, free riders can be punished.
Refinement of "Contract": Suggested defining "contract" as the similarity in people's individual rules, rather than a single, pre-existing agreement. If the contract is a description of shared moral rules, then one contributes by having rules that align, and free riders might be those who introduce new, non-conforming rules.
Student 3: Implied/Tacit Consent
Argument: Consent can be implied or rhetorical, even without explicit signing.
Analogy: Entering a room for a test implies consent to the rules of the environment (e.g., being quiet).
Application to Morality: In society, individuals implicitly consent to moral norms by participating and "knowing" what is expected, much like being born into a country implies following its social ideas. (Open Question: Does merely existing in a society mean one automatically consents to all its moral tenets?)