Social Contract Theory, Contractarianism and Contractualism

The first major normative ethical theory we discussed was Utilitarianism, which defines the right action as the one that maximizes utility. Utilitarianism is the prominent type of Consequentialist ethical theory, which more generally define the right action in terms of the consequences the action produces. However the next two theories we will discuss are very different and and require the agent to proceed in their ethical reasoning very differently than an agent would if he or she were reasoning in a consequentialist. Consequentialist theories, in their basic form, define something as good and then require the agent to maximize that good thing. Social contract theories require the agent to consider his role as one member of a society in which all members agree certain rules, the social contract, and then to act according to the previously agreed upon rules, regardless of the consequences. Social contract theories determine the rightness and wrongness of actions based on certain rules rather than on the consequences of any particular action. The two different types of social contract theory are known as contractarianism and contractualism. Although both think about right and wrong in terms of the social contract the two theories are actually very different, as we shall see.
Contractarianism and Contractualism

• Contractarians
  • Thomas Hobbes, Robert Nozick*, David Gautier, Gibert Harman
•  Contractualists
  • Jean Jacques Rousseau (sort of), Immanuel Kant, John Rawls, Timothy Scanlon
•  Contractualism does not attempt to derive morality from pure self-interest (prudentiality), for contractarians there is nothing but prudentiality
• Have different definitions of reason and differing views regarding what types of actions are rational
  • For Hobbes, and contractarians, reason is purely prudential (or instrumental). Reason is an instrument to get what we want, however reason doesn’t tell us what we should want or ought to do beyond what we already want. For Hobbes it would never be rational to act against one’s self-interest. Reason never tells us we ought to act in such a way as to forgo our self-interest for some other end. Although it may tell us we need to curtail our pursuit of self-interest in order to achieve a long term goal i.e. it can tell us to forgo short desires or interests in favor of long term desires or interests.
  • For Kant, and contractualists, reason possesses a normative power which goes beyond merely telling us how to achieve our pre-set ends, it actually commands us to set certain ends, even if we have no interest in those ends. Kant, thinks it is perfectly intelligible to say that although I want something and I have no self-interested reason not to pursue it, reason nevertheless commands me not to pursue it. Kant thinks reason has is not merely instrumental and that in additional to being instrumental it is also normative. In simple terms reason might tell us we have self-interested reasons for doing or not doing a particular action but it also informs us of the moral reasons we have for doing or not doing a particular action.

Contractualism or Hobessian Social Contract Theory
Basic Assumptions

• Everyone is motivated by self-interest and is completely rational in pursuing their own self-interest
• Everyone does best when we all agree to live by certain rules

Prisoner’s Dilemma

• A situation where everyone would be better off by cooperating but to minimize risk and maximize gain through the direct pursuit of self-interest both become worse off
• The prisoner’s dilemma is supposed to be analogous to the way people make economic/social decisions in society

State of Nature

• The pre-contract state of human beings
• Term was introduced by Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan
• The state of nature is a “war of all against all . . . in which the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”
• State of nature is a prisoner’s dilemma because by attempting to maximize self-interest everyone is made worst off
• To get out of the state of nature we need two things
  • Rules that work to everyone’s benefit if followed
  • Someone to enforce the rules

Advantages

• Contractarianism offers a clear metaethical justification of moral rules

◦                     And this justification is rooted in self-interest which is an undeniable source of motivation
◦                     Provides a naturalistic and scientific explanation of what morality is and how it arises
The Problem with Contractarianism

• The Fool Objection

◦                     Hobbes tries to show that even the person who is entirely self-interested ought (prudentially) to follow moral rules/laws of society
◦                     This is sometimes called “the freerider problem”

The Moral Community

• Contractarianism doesn’t seem to countenance  moral duties to people outside our contract, this could include animals, children, other societies, intelligent life on other planets, etc