ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 3 Discussion
The Social Contract
Social Contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of (often “unwritten”?) rules governing how people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others agree to follow these rules as well.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) runs the reasoning akin to a logical syllogism:
We are all self-interested,
Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests,
We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order,
Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules.
Hobbes feared a primitive “State of Nature” in which there was no such thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was “nasty, brutish, and short” — in a kind of perpetual state of warfare. He demanded top-down order to quell revolt. His conception of a strong monarch ensures that control is sustained over chaos.
John Locke (1632-1704) disagreed, and countered that the state exists (Links to an external site.) to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right—and sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support and even to rebel. This is only, however, when all legal means have been exhausted. Normally, a just ruler is in power.
Locke addressed Hobbes’s claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though he attributed this claim to “some men” not to Hobbes. He refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature (remember, this was ~400 years ago). For this purpose, he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action to themselves punish wrongdoers, as in a state of nature. (Today, we may ask if any societies still exist without political jurisdiction, territorial authorities, policies of the UN, and global influences altering “nature.”)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) argued for waiving one’s natural rights in favor of state protection, which would reconcile equality and freedom. An elected legislature of representatives backs up this trust placed in it by the people, so their “general well-being” resists “special interests.” Democracy remains pure. A “civil” secular “religion” (~American patriotism + French laïcité) commands loyalty.
So, which philosopher do you support? Why? Give “real world” not “textbook” examples. Do not cut + paste secondary sources. This discussion stimulates your thoughts, original ideas.
Remember to keep your responses in the context of our social contract discussion and stay connected with the ethics of justice. Emphasize relevant and practical cases.
