Ninja Cat

Contractarian Case Analysis

Readings

Texts

Rand, "The Virtue of Selfishness" (from last time)
Thomas Hobbes, "Leviathan", Chapters 13, 14, and 15 (from last time)

Notes

Hobbes' View of Morality (from last time)
The Prisoner's Dilemma (from last time)
The Best World (from last time)
Social Contract Theory (from last time)

Cases

Synopsis

We continued today where we left off last time by demonstrating the Prisoner's Dilemma in class.

The Prisoner's Dilemma was Thomas Hobbes' way of understanding how acting in our individual best interests as the Ethical Egoist would have it actually, and paradoxically, works against our individual best interests. We find that we are individually better off if we do what is not in our individual best interests and instead do what is in our mutual best interests, as bizarre as that sounds. The fact that we act in our best interests by forgoing acting in our best interests highlights the failure of Ethical Egoism and underwrites the third and last of the major non-relativist, non-moral-theologist alternative theories we take up this semester.

You see, the fact that people tend towards Ethical Egoism in justifying their actions was an important starting point for the philosopher Thomas Hobbes' ideas.

Hobbes, of Leviathan fame, realized that there are four important facts of the human condition, one of which is that people behave according to a limited altruistic (= limited Ethical Egoist) perspective. What this means is that people will generally act so as to promote their own interests, and perhaps the interests of just a few other people as well.

A second fact of the human condition is that there is a scarcity of resources. There simply isn't enough food or energy to go around, and the problem is getting worse.

A third fact of the human condition is that there is an equality of need. Each person has basically the same needs as the person next to them.

Finally, there is an equality of ability. Even though one person may be stronger or smarter than another, weaknesses like having to sleep and eat even out abilities in such a way that even the smartest and strongest have roughly the same abilities and liabilities as everyone else.

These four facts jointly entail the famous hobbesian state of nature; our challenge is to understand how to avoid the state of nature.

Recall that among the four important facts of the human condition, one is that people behave according to a limited altruistic (= limited Ethical Egoist) perspective. What this means is that people will generally act so as to promote their own interests, and perhaps the interests of just a few other people as well.

Now, all four facts put together imply the State of Nature, according to Hobbes. The State of Nature is not a happy state to be in. In fact it is a terrible, each man/woman for him/her self sort of state. It is something to be avoided at all costs.

Once we understand how the Four Hobbesian Facts of the Human Condition jointly entail the State of Nature, we recognize that eliminating any one of them allows us to avoid the State of Nature. That is, given sufficient resources, or different needs, or different abilities, or an altruistic nature, we halt our decent into the grim world Hobbes envisions.

The upshot of our discussion today is that we can avoid the state of nature provided we form a social contract with one another for our mutual benefit. This social contract, which is ordinarily implicit, consists of all the rules necessary for social living.

According to Hobbes, this is the fundamental reason for the existence of the state. The state exists to make sure that everyone cooperates so that we can avoid the State of Nature. (Please note that this is a very simplistic summary of Hobbes' Leviathan.) At root the state is founded on principles which are necessary for social living. By considering principles necessary for social living, we construct the moral theory known as Social Contract Theory (SCT).

We concluded our discussion of Social Contract Theory today by reviewing the lessons of the Prisoners' Dilemma and discussing a strategy for applying the theory: The Veil of Ignorance Strategy. Consider the following case, which you might find helpful in thinking about how Social Contract Theory can be brought to bear on ethical dilemmas.

Case C

Next today we discussed the complicated nature of applying Social Contract Theory in light of the intriguing case: Protests and Property Destruction, which highlights the difference (often profound) between utilitarian reasoning about a case and contractarian reasoning. As we discovered, considering the veil of ignorance tends to lay bare the complicated nature of determining what counts as fairness and how difficult it can be to fairly (judiciously? justly?) weigh competing interests in a context where we insist on mutual benefit.

So it is one thing to determine that, for example, a principle of equal pay for equal work can be justified from behind the veil of ignorance, quite another to determine which factors may be brought into consideration when evaluating specific individuals. It can be frustrating in pursuing these discussions to see the extent to which only more complications seem introduced, prompting further distinctions and, seemingly, multiplying complications.

Nevertheless, in appealing as we have to concepts like fairness and justice, we surely have added importantly to the concepts relevant to moral normative analysis, concepts like good consequences (utilitarianism) and respect for persons and respect for autonomy (deontology/Kant).

Next time we will see where these points lead us, but only after considering one more perspective on morality--not so much a new theory, as it happens, but an additional resource as we think about what it is to be a good person.