The Social Contract-1

The Social Contract Recall: We are currently continuing to examine humanist options for morality. The question then is what is the natural property that we appeal to in order to derive morality? Egoism: Desire to achieve our own happiness. Utilitarianism: Desire for overall happiness. Kant: Rationality. The Social Contract Theory: In order to best judge our natural properties, we should look at ourselves in a state of nature. That is, free from social influences. The Hobbesian Vision In the state of nature we are rational, self-interested agents. It is a state of complete freedom and there is no morality—in such a condition, every man has a right to every thing; even to one another’s body. RT, 61 It is a state of scarcity. Our existence is one of continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. RT, 59 Only through contract can we escape such a condition. Our nature as rational self-interested agents ensures that we will make such a contract. (Rational = utility maximizer) The Big Picture Morality is like the rules of a game. We all get together and determine those rules. “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.” EMP, 145 The state is then justified as the enforcer of the contract. (Prevents the continuation of the state of war and free-riders.) An action is right if and only if it is permitted by the social contract. Consider the Prisoner’s Dilemma Questions or Objections How does this differ from CR? Rational Legislation vs. Irrational Prejudice From our true nature vs. From social influence

The state of nature is a historical fiction. Some are in the state of nature today Claim is not, what did we agree to, but what would we agree to Implicit agreement What about those who cannot participate in the contract? Animals Severely Disabled Future Generations Nature What are agents in this state of nature really like? Selfish? Altruistic? Middle Ground? How do we know what is nature and what is nurture? Does rationality guarantee anything regarding particular rules? A New Take John Rawls asks us to enter an original position. The original position is a position of ignorance about our placement in the world (i.e., we do not know our sex, race, country, social status, theory of the good, etc.). Behind a veil of ignorance. The correct moral rules are then those that rational, self-interested agents would hypothetically agree to in such a state.