SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

Is morality a matter of following a social contract?

What should this contract be like?

REVIEW

While looking at egoism last week, we saw that it

has three major problems:
1.
2.
3.

Clash with moral intuitions

Publicity: by its own lights, it shouldnt be taught
Prisoners dilemma: if everyone is an egoist, it can
be worse for all than if everyone was an altruist

In 1650, Hobbes proposes to solve all these

problems through a strictly enforced social
contract
Moreover, he argues that we should agree to
this social contract because it is in our selfinterest to do so

THE STATE OF NATURE

Hobbes was a psychological egoist and believed

that our natural state is a state of war, due to our
natural equality and
1.
2.
3.

Competition for limited resources

Fear of others stealing from you or killing you
Glory, i.e. wanting others to respect you

In this constant warlike attitude, we wouldnt

be able to trust others, and progress, art,
industry, education would all be impossible
As Hobbes puts it, the life of man [would be]
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
What is an example of a state of nature?

GETTING OUT OF THE STATE OF

NATURE

How do we get out of the terrible state of nature?

1.
2.

Follow the laws of nature

Put a coercive power in charge to enforce laws

The laws of nature stem from the basic right of

nature: Each person may do whatever is in their
power to protect their life and the means of
preserving it
This leads to a basic law of nature: One is
forbidden from doing what is destructive to
ones life or to the means of preserving it
All the individual laws of nature, then, are ways
of keeping you from destroying your own life

THE LAWS OF NATURE

AND COERCIVE FORCE

There are many laws of nature, but we will focus

on three of the most important:

Seek peace as far as you have hope of obtaining it; if

you cannot obtain it, then resort to war
Be willing, when others are too, to lay down your
rights, if you expect others to do the same

1.
2.

Perform on the covenants (contracts) you make

3.

E.g., if you dont want others to mock you, you shouldnt

mock them
Hobbes considers this the font and origin of justice

Hobbes thinks its foolish to perform on a

contract without assurance that others will also,
so we need a coercive force to ensure this

PROS AND CONS

Pros of Hobbesian social contract theory:

If

followed, it leads to a harmonious society

There is a lot of flexibility and freedom, compared to
divine command theory, e.g.

Cons:

Hobbes

thought it was never right to rebel against

ones leader, even if they are oppressive the risks of
anarchy (the state of nature) are too high

This contradicts our moral intuitions

Hobbes

reply to egoism is weak: he claims (in his

reply to the Fool) that its never in your self-interest
to break the law, because the risk is too great

This doesnt seem empirically supported

QUICK ASIDE: LOCKES SOCIAL

CONTRACT
In 1689, philosopher John Locke offered a slightly
different description of our natural state, focusing
on its freedom and equality
Nonetheless, he agrees with Hobbes that we
could never feel secure in this state and hence
would give up some freedom for greater security
He differs from Hobbes in considering it
appropriate for people to overthrow their
government when the trade-off isnt worth it

Unsurprisingly,

the colonists drew on Locke in

drafting the Declaration of Independence

Which view do you think is closer to the truth?

RAWLS: JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS

For Hobbes, justice is simply following through
on your covenant: to do so is just, to break a
covenant is unjust
Rawls (1985) argues that justice is somewhat
more complicated: it means being fair to all
members of the society
To ensure fairness in our social contract, he
proposes that we imagine a hypothetical scenario
he calls the original position

In

the original position, we have a veil of ignorance:

we dont know what our actual characteristics are
E.g., you would not know your gender, race, etc.

THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

Without knowing what characteristics each of us
has personally, Rawls thinks, we could agree on
principles of justice that were fair to all
In particular, you would want to maximize
opportunity for the least advantaged, since that
could be you
Thus, he thinks we would settle on the following:

1.
2.

Equality in basic rights and duties

Social and economic inequalities are only just if they
result in compensating benefits for everyone, in
particular for the least advantaged of society

SUMMING UP
For Hobbes, the goal of the social contract is to
avoid a state of nature; to do so, we should follow
the laws of nature and obey those in charge
For Rawls, the goal of the social contract is to
make society just, i.e. fair for all; to do so, we
should choose principles that arent biased by our
knowledge of our personal characteristics

Next week, well consider the view of Rawls

primary opponent: the utilitarian
For

utilitarians, all that matters is the total amount

of happiness, not whether its justly distributed