)RAL PHILOSOPHY winger suggests, "disorganized person­ n to wild and impulsive actions" over trol, then the therapeutic model will in­ peal than Kant's sterner attitude. In fact, ist that if criminals are not responsible no sense to resent their behavior and It to the extent that they are regarded as hout excuse, who simply choose tei vio- . rs for no rationally acceptable motive, will continue to have great persuasive CHAPTER 11 The Idea of a Social Contract The passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them. And reason suggesteth convenient articles of peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement. , These articles, are they, which otherwise are called the Laws of Nature. THOMAS HOBBES, LEVIATHAN (1651) 11.1. Hobbes's Argument Suppose we take away all the traditional props for morality. As­ sume, first, that there is no God to issue commands and reward virtue; and second, that there are no "moral facts" built into the nature of things. Further, suppose we deny that human beings are naturally altruistic-we see people as essentially motivated to pursue their own interests. Where, then, does morality come from? If we cannot appeal to God, moral facts, or natural altru­ ism, is there anything left on which morality might be founded? Thoma~_Hobbes, the foremost British philosopher of the 17th century, tried to show that morality does not depend on any of those things. Instead, morality should be understood as the solution to a practical problem that arises for self-interested human beings. We all want to live as well as possible; but none of us can flourish unless we have a peaceful, cooperative social order. Nld we cannot have a peaceful, cooperative social order without rules. The moral rules, then, are simply the rules that are necessary if we are to gain the benefits of social living. That-not God, altruism, or "moral facts"-is the key to under­ standing ethics. Hobbes begins by asking what it would be like if there were no social rules and no commonly accepted mechanism 141 142 THE ELEMENTS OF MOR"-L PHILOSOPHY for enforcing them. Imagine, if you will, that there was no such thing as government-no laws, no police, and no courts. In this situation, each of us would be free to do as we pleased. Hobbes called this the state of nature. What would it be like? Hobbes thought It would be dreadful. In the Leviathan he wrote that there would be no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncer­ tain:"and consequently no culture of the earth; no naviga­ tion, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, con­ tinual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Why would things be so bad? It is not because people are bad. Rather, it is because of four basic facts about the conditions of human life: • First, there is the fact of equality of need.'Each of us needs the same basic things iIl'order to survive-food, cloth­ ing, shelter. Although we may differ in some of our needs (diabetics need insulin, others don't), we are all essentially alike. • Second, there is the fact of scarcity. We do not live in the Garden of Eden, where milk flows in streams and every tree hangs heavy with fruit. The world is a hard, inhos­ pitable place, where the things we need to survive do not exist in plentiful supply. We have to work hard to pro­ duce them, and even then there often is not enough to go around. • If there are not enough essential goods to go around, who will get them? Since each of us wants to live, and to live as well as possible, each of us will want as much as we can get. But will we be able to prevail over the oth­ ers, who also want the scarce goods? Hobbes thinks not, . because of the third fact about our condition, the fact of the_es~(ffltial equality if human power. No one is so supe­ rior to everyone else, in strength and cunning, that he or she can pn;vail over them indefinitely. Of course, some people ar'e smarter and stronger than others; but THE IDEA even the strongest can be br ing together. • Ifwe cannot prevail by our 01 we have? Can we, for exam! good 'Will of other people to fourth and final fact is the fac people are not wholly selfish, much about themselves; and that whenever our vital intere: will step aside. ''''ben we put these facts together, a all need the same basic things, and th to go around. Therefore, we will be it them. But no one has what it takes to I and no one-or almost no one-will isfaction of his or her needs in favo Hobbes puts it, is a "constant state oj it is a war no one can hope to win. T wants to survive will try to seize whal defend it from attack. But others wil This is why life in the state of nature Hobbes did not think this a mel out that this is what actually happel lapse, as during a civil insurrection. P hoard food, arm themselves, and I ('''That would you do if tomorrow me cover that because of some great cal had collapsed so that there were no f courts?) Moreover, the nations of the ingful international law, exist in reI; much like individuals in the "state of standv at one another's throats, armt (:;Iearly, to escape the state of r found for people to cooperate with OJ cooperative society, the amount of ( creased and distributed to all who n are required for this to happen. First, that people will not harm one anothe1< work together without fear of attad second, people must be able to rely 0 JRAL PHILOSOPHY 19ine, if you will, that there was no such 10 laws, no police, and no courts. In this uld be free to do as we pleased. Hobbes ture: What would it be like? would be dreadful. In the Leviathan he be ")', because the fruit thereof is uncer­ tly no culture of the earth; no naviga­ :ommodities that may be imported by ; building; no instruments of moving, 1 things as require much force; no :e of the earth; no account of time; no ociety; and which is worst of all, con­ ger ~f violent death; and the life of lasty, brutish, and short. ) bad? It is not because people are bad. four basic facts about the conditions of ~ fact of equality ofneed.'Each of us needs hings in~order to survive-food, cloth­ hough we may differ in some of our need insulin, others don't), we are all the fact of scarcity. We do not live in the , where milk flows in streams and every {with fruit. The world is a hard, inhos­ Lere the things we need to survive do not [ supply. We have to work hard to pro­ even then there often is not enough to enough essential goods to go around, n? Since each of us wants to live, and to )ssible, each of us will want as much as will we be able to prevail over the oth­ 1t the scarce goods? Hobbes thinks not, hird fact about our condition, the fact ualityofhum(mpower. No one is so supe­ else,in strength and cunning, that he 'ail over them indefinitely. Of course, ~ smarter and stronger than others; but THE mE'\, OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT 143 even the strongest can be brought down by others act­ ing together. • If we cannot prevail by our own strength, what hope do we have? Can we, for example, rely on the charity or good will of other people to help us? We cannot. The fourth and final fact is the fact of limited altruism. Even if people are not wholly selfish, they nevertheless care very much about themselves; and we cannot simply assume that whenever our vital interests conflict with theirs, they will step aside. When we put these facts together, a grim picture emerges. We all need the same basic things, and there aren't enough ofthem to go around. Therefore, we will be in a kind of competition for them. But no one has what it takes to prevail in this competition, and no one--or almost no one-will be willing to forgo the sat­ isfaction of his or her needs in favor of others. The result, as Hobbes puts it, is a "constant state of war, of one with all." And it is a war no one can hope to ""in. The reasonable person who wants to survive ""ill try to seize what he needs and prepare to defend it from attack. But others 'Nill be doing the same thing. This is why life in the state of nature would be intolerable. Hobbes did not think this a mere speculation. He pointed out that this is what actually happens when governments col­ lapse, as during a civil insurrection. People begin desperately to hoard food, artn themselves, and lock out their neighbors. (What would you do if tomorrow morning you woke up to dis­ cover that because of some great catastrophe the government had collapsed so that there were no functioning laws, police, or courts?) Moreover, the nations of the world, without any mean­ ingful international law, exist in relation to one another very much like individuals in the "state of nature," and they are con­ stantly at one another's throats, armed and distrustful. Clearly, to escape the state of nature, some way must be found for people to cooperate with one another. In a stable and cooperative society, the amount of essential goods can be in­ creased and distributed to all who need them. But two things are required for this to happen. First, there must be guarantees that people will not harm one another-people must be able to work together without fear of attack, theft, or treachery. And second, people must be able to rely on one another to keep their 144 THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY agref!Y!tents. Only then can there be a division oflabor. If one per­ -son grows food and another spends his time helping the sick, while still another builds houses, with each expecting to share in the benefits created by the others, each person in the chain must be able to count on the others to perform as expected. Once these assurances are in place, a society can develop in which everyone is better off than they were in the state of na­ ture. There can then be "commodities imported by the sea, commodious building, arts, letters," and the like. But-and this is one of Hobbes's main points-in order for this to happen, government must be established; for it is government, with its system of laws, police, and courts, that ensures that people can live with a minimum fear of attack and that people will have to keep their bargains with one another. Government is an indis­ pensable part of the scheme. To escape the state of nature, then, people must agree to the establishment of rules to govern their relations ~ith on~ an­ other, and they must agree to the establishment of an agency­ the state-with the power necessary to enforce those rules. Ac­ cording to Hobbes, such an agreement actually exists, and it makes social living possible. This agreement, to which every cit­ izen is a party, is called the social contract. In addition to explaining the purpose of the state, the So­ cial Contract Theory explains the nature of morality. The two are closely linked: The state exists to enforce the most impor­ tant rules necessary for social living, while morality consists in the whole set of rules that facilitate socialli"ing. It is only within the context of the social contract that we can become beneficent beings, because the contract creates the conditions under which we can afford to care about others. In the state of nature, it is every man for himself; it would be fool­ ish for anyone to adopt the policy of "looking out for others," because one could do so only at the cost of putting one's own interests in continual jeopardy. But in society, altruism becomes possible. By releasing us from "the continual fear of violent death," the social contract frees us to take heed of others. Jean­ Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), the French thinker who after Hobbes is most closely identified with this theory, went so far as to say that we become different kinds of creatures when we enter civilized relations with others. In his most famous work, The So­ cial Contract (1762), Rousseau wrote: THE IDEA ( The passage from the state of natur duces a very remarkable change in m the voice of duty takes the place of right to appetite, does man, who So f: himself, find that he is forced to act ( and to consult his reason before liste] ... His faculties are so stimulated an so extended, his feelings so ennoblec uplifted, that, did not the abuses of ten degrade him below that which bound to bless continually the happ him from it forever, and, instead of native animal, made him an intelligc And what does the "voice of duty" req It requires him to set aside his prival tions" in favor of rules that impartiall everyone alike. But he is able to do this agreed to '00 the same thing-that is tract." Thus we can summarize the sod morality as follows: Morality consists in the set of rules, . treat one another, that rational peopl.§ will tual benefit, on the condition that others fo 11.2. The Prisoner's Dilemm. Hobbes's argument is one way of arrivi Theory. There is another line of thoug impressed many philosophers in re~ thought is connected ,vith a problem i as the Prisoner's Dilemma. The Pris. . stated first in the form of a puzzle; yo can solve it before looking at the answ Suppose you live in a totalitarian your astonishment, you are arrested al The police say that you have been plo ment with a man named Smith, who h: is being held in a separate cell. The in you confess. You protest your innocen Smith. But this does no good. It soon tors are not interested in the truth; f )RAL PHILOSOPHY :l there be a division oflabor. If one per­ )ther spends his time helping the sick, .s houses, with each expecting to share )y the others, each person in the chain n the others to perform as expected. lces are in place, a society can develop ter off than they were in the state of na­ ;e "commodities imported by the sea, Lrts, letters," and the like. But-and this :l points-in order for this to happen, tablished; for it is government, with its :ld courts, that ensures that people can .r of attack and that people ,·villhave to lone another. Government is an indis­ erne. ~of nature, then, people must agree to =s to govern their relations ",ith one an­ 'ee to the establishment of an agency­ =r necessary to enforce those rules. Ac­ h an agreement actually exists, and it ble. This agreement, to which every cit­ he social contract. ainirig the purpose of the state, the So­ plains the' nature of morality. The two "tate exists to enforce the most impor­ ocialliving, while morality consists in the Lcilitate social living. ~ context of the social contract that we Jeings, because the contract creates the we can afford to care about others. In ~very man for himself; it would be fool­ the policy of "looking out for others," ) only at the cost of putting one's own ,pardy. But in society, altruism becomes lS from "the continual fear of violent ct frees us to take heed of others. Jean­ ~-1778), the French thinker who after lentified with this theory, went so far as Wferent kinds of creatures when we enter thers. In his most famous work, The So­ sseau wrote: THE IDEA OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT 145 The passage from the state of nature to the civil state pro­ duces a very remarkable change in man ... Then only, when the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and right to appetite, does man, who so far had considered opJy himself, find that he is forced to act on different principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations ... His faculties are so stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul so uplifted, that, did not the abuses of this new condition of­ ten degrade him below that which he left, he would be bound to bless continually the happy moment which took him from it forever, and, instead of a stupid and unimagi­ native animal" made him an intelligent being and a man. And what does the "voice of duty" require this new man to do? It requires him to set aside his private, self-centered "inclina­ tions" in favor of rules that impartially promote the welfare of everyone alike. But he is able to do this only because others have agreed to do the same thing-that is the essence of the "con­ tract." Thus we can summarize the social contract conception of morality as follows: Morality consisls in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mu­ tual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well. 11.2. The Prisoner's Dilemma Hobbes's argument is one way of arriving at the Social Contract Theory. There is another line of thought, however, that has also impressed ,many philosophers in recent years. This line of thought is connected with a problem in decision theory known as the Prisoner's Dilemma. The Prisoner's Dilemma may be stated first in the form of a puzzle; you may want to see if you can solve it before looking at the answer. Suppose you live in a totalitarian society; and one day, to your astonishment, you are arrested and charged with treason. The police say that you have been plotting against the govern­ ment with a man named Smith, who has also been arrested and is being held in a separate cell. The interrogator demands that you confess. You protest your innocence; you don't even know Smith. But this does no good. It soon becomes clear your cap­ tors are not interested in the truth; for reasons of their own, 146 THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY they merely want to convict someone. They offer you the fol­ Imving deal: • If Smith does not confess, but you confess and testify against him, they will release you. You will go free, whereas Smith, who did not cooperate, will be put away for 10 years. • If Smith confesses and you do not, the situation will be reversed-he will go free while you get 10 years. • If you both confess, however, you ""ill each be sentenced to 5 years. • But if neither of you confesses, there won't be enough evidence to convict either of you. They can hold you for a year, but then they ,vill have to let both of you go. Finally, you are told that Smith is being offered the same deal; but you cannot communicate with him and you have no way of knowing what he will do. The problem is this: Assuming that your only goal is to spend as little time injail as possible, what should you do? Con­ fess or not confess? For the purposes of this problem, you should forget about maintaining your dignity, standing up for your rights, and other such notions. That is not what this prob­ lem is about. You should also forget about trying to help Smith. This problem is strictly about calculating what is in your own in­ terests. The question is: What will get you free the quickest? Confessing or not confessing? At first glance it may seem that the question cannot be an­ swered unless you know what Smith will do. But that is an illu­ sion. The problem has a perfectly clear solution: No matter what Smith does, you should confess. This can be shown by the following reasoning. (I) Either Smith ,vill confess or he won't. (2) Suppose Smith confesses. Then, if you confess-you ""ill get 5 years, whereas if you do not confess you ""ill get 10. Therefore, if he confesses, you are better off con­ fessing as welL (3) On the other hand, suppose Smith does not confess. Then you are in this position: If you confess you ,vill go free, whereas if you do not confess you will remain im­ prisoned for a year. Clearly, then, even if Smith does not confess, you ,vill still be better off if you do. THE IDEA OJ (4) Therefore, you must confess. jail the soonest, regardless of So far, so good. But there is a catch. F being offered the same deal. Assumin he will also conclude from the very s should confess. Thus the outcome wi confess, and this means that you will b tences. But if you had both done the oppos go-tten out in only one year. That's the cat ing your own interests, you both end 1 had acted differently. That is what Dilemma a dilemma. It is a paradox Smith will both be better off if you sin not in your own individual self-interest Ifyou could communicate with Sm make an agreement \-Vith him. You cou you would confess; then you could both tion. By cooperating you would both t acted independently. Cooperating willI optimum result-immediate freedom­ YOIl1 a better result than either ofyou COl cooperate.
Purchase answer to see full attachment