Problems and Prospects of the Social Contract Tradition

Why Be Moral? The Challenge of the Fool

The Rationality of Morality: Most moral theories attempt to prove that it is rational to be moral and irrational to be immoral. Social contract theorists, specifically contractarians, aim to show that acting justly aligns with reason.
Hobbes's Calculus: The classic statement of this aim is found in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. Hobbes identifies the fundamental reason for acting as self-interest. To Hobbes, rationality is equivalent to increasing one's chances of becoming better off.
The Fool: Hobbes's antagonist, the "Fool," is a calculating amoralist. The Fool admits that breaking promises is unjust but remains indifferent to justice itself. He reasons that keeping promises is only beneficial when it serves his interests; if acting unjustly provides a greater advantage, the Fool believes it is rational to be immoral.
The Case of the Performant Bargain: Hobbes considers a scenario where the Fool makes a deal, and the other party has already fulfilled their side (e.g., delivered money or goods). Standard advice might be to "take the money and run," as this yields a benefit without any reciprocal sacrifice. While immoral, this seemingly represents the "height of rationality" for a self-interested actor.

Hobbes's Defense of Justice

The Probability of Gain: Hobbes argues that while people sometimes get away with injustice, it is never rational because it does not increase the likelihood of personal gain. He contends that the chances of successfully evading consequences are never good enough to make the risk reasonable.
Dismissal of Divine Punishment: Hobbes does not rely on religious threats. The Fool "has said in his heart that there is no God," so the fear of divine wrath is an ineffective deterrent for the amoralist under consideration.
The Concept of a Well-Ordered Society: Hobbes suggests it is never rational to behave unjustly in a "well-ordered" society. Such a society provides reliable and severe threats (punishments) for breaking mutually beneficial rules. In Footnote $1$ , it is noted that criminal organizations like the Mafia, as depicted in The Sopranos or The Wire, function as well-ordered societies because punishments for informing (acting against the group's rules) are severe and reliably enforced.

The Free-Rider Problem

Definition: The free-rider problem occurs when a group cooperates to provide a common good. If enough people contribute, the good is available to all, including those who refuse to help. These "free riders" exploit the efforts of others without making sacrifices themselves.
Examples of Common Public Goods: * Maintaining clean parks (avoiding littering). * Social decency. * Democratic elections (voting). * Eliminating diseases (immunization). * National defense (military service). * Government agencies ensuring the safety of highways, medicines, and food.
The Rationality of the Free-Rider: Since a single contribution is often negligible (e.g., one vote won't stop democracy from crumbling; one gum wrapper won't spoil a park), a self-interested person may reason that the resource will exist regardless of their sacrifice. Gaining the benefit "for nothing" appears highly rational from a purely self-interested perspective.

The Three Claims of Rationality

To address the amoralist, contractarians evaluate three distinct claims:

Claim 1: "No matter who you are, or what circumstances you find yourself in, it is always rational to act justly." * Hobbes's View: Hobbes cannot successfully defend this because, in certain cases, risks are low, punishments are mild, and rewards for injustice are substantial.
Claim 2: "It is 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." * Defense: A just person enjoys long-term benefits: better sleep, true friendships, reliable confidants, and a lack of fear regarding law enforcement. The criminal life is one of constant insecurity and worry.
Claim 3: "For just people, it is always rational to act justly." * Defense: To maintain one's good character, one must continue to act justly. Giving in to temptation chips away at virtue and can lead to a slide into corruption that is difficult to stop.

The Limits of Rationality: The Cost of Virtue

The Breakdown of the Defense: Claims $2$ and $3$ only hold in stable, well-ordered societies. In corrupt environments, virtue can lead to disaster.
Case Study: Marlene Garcia-Esperat: A Philippine journalist who investigated corruption in the Department of Agriculture. In $2005$ , she was murdered in front of her children by assassins hired by officials to protect their illegal activities.
Journalist Mortality Statistics: * Between $1986$ and $2019$ , more than $100$ Philippine journalists were murdered for news coverage or whistle-blowing. * Since $1992$ , according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, more than $1,342$ journalists have been murdered worldwide.
Conclusion on Hobbesian Virtue: Hobbes denies that virtue is its own reward. If being good does not promise a more secure or longer life, Hobbesian rationality suggests that "you make injustice your master."

The Role of Consent

Consent as Moral Foundation: A contract is a promise given for benefit. If we are required to keep promises, we are bound to the social contract. However, few people have actually signed such a contract.
Explicit vs. Tacit Consent: * Explicit: Signing document (e.g., the Mayflower Compact in $1620$ , Athenian citizens pledging obedience, or naturalized US citizens pledging allegiance). * Tacit Consent: Expressed through silence and lack of opposition (e.g., staying in a country, reaping benefits, not calling for revolution).
Problems with Tacit Consent: For many, staying in a country is a practical survival decision (to avoid imprisonment or death) rather than a sign of agreement. Some cannot leave because no other country will accept them.
The 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 not have a duty to obey the law.
Contractarian Rebuttal: Contractarianism does not rely on actual consent. Instead, the social contract is a hypothetical one: what would free, rational, and equal people agree to as terms for mutually beneficial cooperation? This serves as an ideal code to evaluate actual laws.

Disagreement among the Contractors

The Problem of Divergence: What if idealized contractors cannot agree on matters like war policy or aid for the poor?
John Rawls's Solution: Rawls places contractors behind a "veil of ignorance," stripping them of distinguishing features (social status, desires, family), making them "clones" who will reach the same rational conclusion.
Hobbesian Objection: Hobbes insists we should follow rules that real people, situated as they are, would agree to. Rules must satisfy self-interest for the "real me."
Moral Neutrality: If contractors cannot agree on a policy, that action is considered "morally neutral"—neither required nor forbidden. This is problematic if contractors disagree on critical issues like executions or poverty.

The Scope of the Moral Community

The Standard for Inclusion: In contractarianism, rights and respect are granted to those whose interests are protected by the rules contractors agree upon. Contractors are assumed to be rational and self-interested (having concern for one's own well-being, though not necessarily being "selfish").
Who is a Contractor?: To be a member of the social contract (and thus have moral status), one must be: 1. A potential threat or benefactor (can hurt or help others). 2. Fundamentally an equal (having roughly the same powers). 3. Able to enter agreements (nothing can be gained from them without their consent).
The Vulnerable and Exclusion: Because we can take what we want from trees, animals, infants, and the severely mentally disabled without their consent and without them being a threat, we have no duty to them according to Hobbes.
Charity vs. Duty: Treating vulnerable beings well is a matter of charity, not moral duty. Since sacrifice requires compensation, and there is no benefit to be gained from sacrificing our liberty for these beings, it is "irrational" to include them in the social contract.
The Alien Race Metaphor: If a powerful, indestructible alien race visited Earth, they would be within their rights to "snack on us" because we offer them no benefit in exchange for their restraint. This mirrors the position of the vulnerable in current human contractarian thought.

Questions & Discussion

Is it immoral to be a free rider? Is it irrational? Does the existence of free riders raise a serious problem for contractarianism?
How does Hobbes defend the claim that it is never rational to behave unjustly? Do you find his arguments convincing?
Some people might object that they never explicitly signed a "social contract." How might contractarians respond?
If existing laws are unjust, does social contract theory automatically support them?
Would a group of free, equal, and rational people necessarily agree on rules? If not, is this a problem?
Do animals, the weak, or vulnerable human beings have rights according to this theory?

Cases for Critical Reflection

Doping in Sports: * Case: Lance Armstrong was stripped of $7$ Tour de France titles (won between $1999$ and $2005$ ) for doping. Doping undermines fairness, but athletes feel pressure to do it to maintain a competitive edge. * Question: Does this represent a prisoner's dilemma? Is it morally wrong under contractarianism?
Climate Change: * Case: Global temperatures are rising due to greenhouse gases. Individual sacrifice (e.g., not driving an SUV) is costly and negligible on a global scale. * Prisoner's Dilemma: Professor Casper Hare (MIT) notes that while individuals might prefer driving SUVs, everyone is worse off if everyone emits carbon than if no one does. * Question: What principles would contractors agree to from behind the veil of ignorance?
World Hunger: * Case: Global wealth is unequal; in $2018$ , half of Yemen was at risk of famine, and nearly half a million children were malnourished. * Question: Does contractarianism mandate aid to the poor in our community or foreign nations? Does providing aid pose a prisoner's dilemma?