Social Contract Theory

...assume we were to reject traditional morality:

• no God to issue commands and reward virtue(versus Divine Command Theory)

• no “moral facts” built into the nature of things(versus Natural Law Theory)

• human beings are not naturally altruistic(versus Utilitarianism)

...is there anything left on which morality might be founded?

Hobbes’ Argument

P1 human beings are self-interested

P2 a peaceful, cooperative order is needed for each of us to efficiently and effectively pursue our interests (i.e. flourish)

P3 moral rules are required for this order to exist (i.e. to get the benefits of social living)

C we create and follow moral rules because we are self-interested!!

Hobbes’s State of Nature• no government, laws, police, courts, prisons

• no industry or culture

• no navigation, shipping, goods imported/exported

• no building, no instruments of building

• no history, no art, no writing

• no knowledge at all! ...no society!

“worst of all, continual fear, and the danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor,

nasty, brutish, and short”

Hobbes’s State of Nature

People are essentially alike, in four ways:

• equality of need: we need the same things to survive• subject to scarcity: what we need to survive is scarce• equality of power: no one can always prevail

over others by intellect/strength• limited altruism: we care the most about ourselves

…therefore, the state of nature is anever-ending war of all against all.

Social Contract Theory

To escape the state of nature, people must:

• agree to some rules to govern their relations withone another, and

• agree to the establishment of an agency (i.e. the state) with the power to enforce those rules

Morality consists in the set of rules, governing behavior, that rational people will accept, on the

condition that others accept them as well.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Two required conditions:

• people’s interests are affected not only by what they do but by what other people do as well, and

• everyone will end up worse off if they pursue their own individual interests than if they all do what is not in their own interests

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

• free rider: you are an egoist &others are benevolent

• ordinary morality: everyone is benevolent• state of nature: everyone is an egoist• sucker’s payoff: you are benevolent &

others are egoists

Agreements must be enforced to ensurethat those who keep them aren’t “suckers!”

Questions answered by SCT

1. What moral rules are we bound to follow, and how are those rules justified?“morally binding rules are the ones that facilitate harmonious social living”

2. Why is it reasonable for us to follow the moral rules?“we agree to follow the moral rules because it is to our own advantage to live in a society in which the rules are accepted”

Questions answered by SCT

3. Under what circumstances is it rational to break the rules?“when someone breaks the rules, he releases us from our obligations toward him”

4. How much can morality demand of us?while “we give no greater weight to our own interests than to the interests of others” ...we are not morally bound to sacrifice ourselves

Difficulties for SCT

1. Even IF people came together & developed a social contract:

• was the agreement unanimous?

• what about dissenters?

• are we bound by the contract of our ancestors?

• how is the contract “renewed?”

• what if someone tries to “opt out?”

Difficulties for SCT

2. What are the implications for our duties toward beings who are not able to participate in the contract?

• non-human animals• human infants• humans w/ severe mental impairment

...are they beyond moral consideration (i.e. do we not have duties toward them...?)

Difficulties for SCT

3. How do we know what this “state of nature” is

(or was) like?

• Locke, 30 years after Hobbes, said the state of nature is not a war of all against all, but a state of mutual indifference

• Rousseau said that human nature changes when we leave the state of nature

How can we tell who is correct?