Social Contract, Virtue Ethics & Ethics of Care – Lecture Notes

Session advertised as a refresher on prior “social thinking” plus three new/extra approaches.
Explicitly adds Social Conflict Theory to the mix (only mentioned, not elaborated in transcript).
Other two focal points that do receive detail:
1. Social Contract Theory (Hobbes & Locke).
2. Virtue-based Ethics (Aristotle → Aquinas → contemporary virtue & care ethics).
Continuous theme: contrasting individual good vs social/common good.

Society/government arises from a (real, hypothetical, or tacit) agreement where individuals give up certain freedoms in exchange for security & benefits.
Requires consent—either explicit (signing) or implicit (staying, obeying).

Historical backdrop: English Civil War → fear of anarchy.
View of human nature: In the state of nature life is $\text{“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”}$ due to perpetual conflict.
Solution: an absolute sovereign ("the King") with total decision-making power:
- Hobbes aligns with royal authority because he distrusts popular rule.
- Individuals rationally transfer rights to the sovereign to escape war.
Contract must be voluntarily consented to, yet Hobbes grants little room for later rebellion—once you covenant, exit is costly.

Interaction with contemporaries: engaged with legal reforms on property & fair contracts.
Contract as fictional device not literal history; its value is explanatory.
Government’s legitimacy rests on protecting natural rights (life, liberty, property).
Permits rebellion when rulers break the contract.
Highlights problem of non-consent:
- Children, people with severe disabilities, or coerced parties may be subject to laws without active agreement => ongoing critique.

Everyday contracts: signing Terms of Service on social media platforms; demonstrates frequency of consent acts today.
Tacit consent: most citizens do not actively rebel → interpreted as silent approval (controversial).

Difference between merely being subject to a contract vs being an active party.
How to account for vulnerable populations unable to consent?
Relationship to social conflict theory (teased for later): differing interests may undermine harmony assumed by the contract.

Plato’s dialogues read like plays, not modern textbooks.
- Socrates as principal character questioning others.
Emphasis on dialectic—discovering definitions (e.g., justice) through conversation.
Offers precedent for virtue theories explored next.

Ultimate human purpose: $\textit{eudaimonia}$ —living well & fulfilling one’s function.
Achieved through virtue (arete), not mere pleasure.

Every virtue is the mean between two vices (excess & deficiency):
- Courage lies between cowardice (deficiency) and rashness (excess).
- Anger: need “righteous anger”; too little = apathy, too much = rage.
The mean is relative to us—no single numeric midpoint but context-dependent moderation.

Magnificence: tasteful, large-scale spending on public works (avoid gaudy self-aggrandizement like golden statues of oneself).
Magnanimity (Great-Souledness): crowning virtue; unified excellence + rightful demand for respect.
- Implies high self-esteem, dignified pride, leadership qualities.

Holistic: encourages cultivation of good character rather than rule-following.
Links moral development to practice & habituation—"we become just by doing just acts".

Insufficient focus on social structures; primarily individual self-perfection.
"Everything in moderation" can sound platitudinous or culturally relative.

Merges Biblical theology with Aristotelian philosophy.
Retains four cardinal virtues and adds theological virtues (faith, hope, charity).
Modern ethics often extend his list or translate them (e.g., prudence ≈ practical wisdom).

Students are told virtue theory can supply a road-map for distributing health care:
- Focus on fair (just) allocation.
- Encourage temperate use of resources.
Reminder: virtue ethics alone may not specify systemic rules ⇒ need hybrid frameworks.

Classic scenario (from Kohlberg): husband considers stealing expensive drug to save his wife.
Immanuel Kant (deontology): theft violates universalizable duty → wrong.
Lawrence Kohlberg studied stages of moral reasoning, often privileging abstract justice.
Carol Gilligan critiques Kohlberg, introduces Ethics of Care/Feminist Ethics.
- Example child “Amy” says stealing is right because husband cares for wife.
- Emphasizes relationships, empathy, and responsibility over impersonal rules.

Sensitive to context & particular others, not just generalized humanity.
Sees moral agents as embedded in networks of dependence.
Adds value by integrating perspectives historically associated with women, though lecture warns:
- Avoid rigid gender stereotypes; there is vast variation & intersectionality.

Ethical analysis must account for overlapping identities (gender, race, class, disability, etc.) that shape moral experience.

Lecturer notes planned topic list initially labelled “feminist ethics,” then revised to “ethics of fear” (perhaps a later class theme):
- Indicates ongoing curriculum evolution.
- Suggests exploration of how fear (e.g., of violence, marginalization) informs moral outlooks.

Next meeting scheduled for Tuesday.
Students encouraged to finish readings (Plato, Aristotle) and contemplate:
- How virtue, contract, and care frameworks converge or clash.
- Practical cases (health policy, civil obedience, personal relationships) where each yields distinct guidance.