Philosophy 160C Fall 2008 jayme johnson

Handout 6: Rachelss The Elements of Moral Philosophy: Chapter 10

THE IDEA OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT 11.1 Hobbes's Argument Background

Humans are by nature social animals o as well as sensitive & desiring animals (as utilitarianism stresses) o as well as rational animals (as Kantians stress) Source of morality, perhaps, to be found in our social arrangements

Hobbes

Imagine if their were no laws -- what would such a "state of nature" it be like? o a war of each against all o death of civilization o life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" Four facts which would make it so o equality of need: we all need the same basic things to survive o scarcity: limited supply of the essentials -- it ain 't Eden here no more o essential equality of human power: no one is individually radically superior in strength or cunning o limited altruism: if you don't look out for yourself, no one is going to do it for you. "Greater love than this has no man, that he would lay down his life for a friend." (my emphasis) The consequences of anarchy born out in reality o when government breaks down: e.g., Somalia, Lebanon, Bosnia o international relations To escape the state of nature requires a social contract to have o rules to govern relations between individuals o an agency -- the state -- to enforce the rules: like a referee Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well (145) or "the whole set of rules that facilitate social living" (144).

Discussion : too broad even on improved formulation: includes

rules of etiquette: the forks go on the left side of the plate actual laws: people will agree to these: they have

traffic laws: "no left turn on red": a moral imperative? trivial laws: the robin shall be the state bird of Michigan not so trivial laws: immoral laws e.g. those upholding slavery essential laws, e.g., against murder & theft even here we might want to distinguish between the underlying moral principle and specific details under in law: various degrees of theft & max./min. penalties for each suggestion: change "will agree" to "need to" agree o essential principles: what has to be agreed to o optional principles: what side of the road to drive on what's the cutoff amount for "grand" larceny Worry: "improved" formulation too narrow: optional principles we think moral?
o o o

11.2 The Prisoner's Dilemma

Scenario o you are arrested for treason along with another man (a total stranger) Smith o you are given the following options if you confess but not Smith you go free Smith gets a 10 yr. sentence if neither of you confess: each gets 1 yrs. if both confess: each gets five years if Smith confesses but you don't you get 10 yrs Smith gets 0 o you are not allowed to communicate with Smith Smith "Confesses" You "Confess" Y: 5 yrs. S: 5 yrs. Y: 10 yrs. S: goes free Smith Doesn't "Confess" Y: go free S: 10 yrs. Y: 1 yr. S: 1 yr.

You Don't "Confess"

Problem o assuming your goal is just to protect your own interests o What should you do? confess or not Solution: o Smith will either confess or not o If Smith does then if you do you get 5 yrs

if you don't you get 10 If Smith doesn't then if you do you get 0 yrs. if you don't you get 1 yr. o Either way, you come out ahead by confessing o So you should confess The Catch o if you both confess you will get 5 yrs o but if you both hadn't confessed you'd have only gotten 1 yr o each pursuing rationally pressing their own best interests in isolation o prevented both from achieving a better outcome than they might due to their inability to cooperate
o

Morality as a Solution to a Prisoner's-Dilemma-Type Problem

The P-D type situation o people's interests are affected not only by what they do but by what others do o everyone will end up worse off if they simultaneously pursue their own interests than if they simultaneously do what is not [would not otherwise be] in their own interests This is the kind of situation we each face in trying to pursue our interests in the context of human society o you could choose to either act egoistically: without consideration for the interests of others act benevolently: taking others' interests into account o everyone else simultaneously faces the same decision o the four possibilities: best to worst I act egoistically while others are benevolent everyone is benevolent everyone is egoistic I act benevolently while others are egoistic Dilemma & Solution o Dilemma: the rational thing to do is to act egoistically -- but in this situation we'd all be worse off than if we cooperated. o Solution: enforceable agreement to cooperate & "obey the rules" of benevolence

11.3 Some Advantages of the Social Contract Theory of Morals

Theory: "morality consists in the set of rules governing how people are to treat one another that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well." (Rachels, p. 150) Has advantages deriving from giving "simple and plausible answers to some difficult questions about morality 1. What moral rules are we bound to follow and how are those rules justified? answer: the morally binding rules are those needed or social living

obviously: rules against harming others, e.g., by murder and theft more questionably: rules against offending others or for their own protection, e.g., those against certain "victimless crimes" 2. Why is is reasonable for us to follow the moral rules? answer: in the long run and in general it is to our advantage to live under the contract our own steady compliance is the reasonable price we pay to secure the compliance of others in this mutually beneficial arrangement 3. Under what circumstances are we allowed to break the rules? 1. answer: it's a matter of reciprocity if someone [habitually] violates the agreement then we are entitled to do likewise -- act inconsiderately of their interests - in return justification of punishment: serves to enforce the primary rules -- the basic job of society it is permissible to punish the rule breaker because they have violated the fundamental condition of reciprocity explanation of why certain duties (e.g., to lay down your life to save a stranger) are supererogatory not warranted under the dilemma calculation since I don't come out ahead vis a vis the "state of nature" reasonable expectation of reciprocation breaks down (since you can't repay the dead) 4. Does morality have an objective basis? answer: Yes morality has an objective basis in our mutual agreement: morality = the rules that rational people agree to accept for their mutual benefit 11.4 The Problem of Civil Disobedience

Under the SCT we have a moral obligation to obey the law based on our contractual agreement o We implicitly contract to follow society's rules in accepting the benefits of social life Issue: can SCT ever recognize a contrary duty of Civil Disobedience (CD) o as it should given our intuitively recognized duty --in some instances -- to break unjust societal rules as Nuremberg precedents imply as acts of righteous CD exemplify pre Civil War underground railway Otto Shindler civil rights protests of the 1950s & 60s CD based objection to SCT: CD will never be justified

the social contract will be undermined if people are allowed to "pick and choose" what laws to obey o so, everyone has an obligation to obey all society's rules under all circumstances Reply: Civil Disobedience requires a good justification (contrary to the "pick & choose" argument) o its not just to "pick and choose" as you please to obey the laws you like and break those you don't o on SCT I will still be morally entitled -- even obliged, in some instances -- to disobey rules my society accepts which are immoral, i.e., which are not such that rational people would agree to accept them for their mutual benefit Deeper Point available to the disenfranchised (reciprocity again) o when one is being denied benefits under the contract o one is correspondingly released from certain obligations under the contract. Civil Disobedience is not ruled out by SCT o may be a permissible remedy for those who are being shorted on the benefits of society o may be a permissible strategy for negotiating rule changes if the new dispensation is better than the old
o

11.5 Difficulties for the Theory 1. Most Common Objection: SCT is Based on a Historical Fiction 1. Objection: "The Social Contract isn't worth the paper its not written on." 1. never really was a state of nature 2. never was an explicit covenant adopted to get out of it 2. Reply: it's an implicit contract: a tacit agreement 1. not literal historical truth 2. it's as if this were true 3. each implicitly accepts duties making for cooperation in society in accepting the benefits social cooperation provides 2. More Powerful Objection: denies moral standing to some who can't reciprocate whom (we think) deserve moral consideration o nonhuman animals o mentally incompetent people o outsiders & the weak: especially slaves? institution of slavery a set of rules that enhanced social living and a very refined society it was; "so civilized," ah doo declare.