Social Contract Theory

Transcription

1 Social Contract Theory Social Contract Theory (SCT) Originally proposed as an account of political authority (i.e., essentially, whether and why we have a moral obligation to obey the law) by political philosophers working in the liberal tradition (broadly construed): Thomas Hobbes ( ), John Locke ( ), Jean-Jacques Rousseau ( ) and others. In contemporary times in particular, by David Gauthier (1932- ) Tim Scanlon (1940- ) applied more specifically as an account of morality 1

2 SCT: General Explanatory Strategy At an abstract level: We seek to understand something specifically, morality and/or political authority. Assume that that something does not/did not exist. How could it come into existence? SCT proposes: Through a bargain, a contract. The upshot: Morality consists in the set of rules, governing behavior, that rational people will accept, on the condition that others accept them as well so, Timmons generic formulation (29): SC: An action is right iff (and because) it is permitted by a set of moral principles that hypothetical agents would agree to under conditions that are ideal for choosing moral principles. (emphasis added) Different theorists have proposed rather different conditions under which a social contract might be achieved 2

3 Hobbes and the State of Nature In order to understand the nature of moral and political norms, imagine a condition in which these did not exist Hobbes In the pre-political state of nature (SON) which precedes civil society there was both absolute freedom and a state of constant war, a war of all against all. In the state of nature, says Hobbes, the life of man is solitary poor, nasty, brutish and short it is not a good deal, so to speak, for anyone The Hobbesian Social Contract (SC) The social contract is a tacit agreement among individuals to give up some degree of the absolute liberty that they possessed in the SON, provided others do so as well, in exchange for something (more) valuable: In the political case: A system of legal rights guaranteed (and enforced) by the state. In the general, social case: A system of moral norms (principles), mutually enforced by everyone. 3

4 So, Why Accept the SC? One answer (Hobbes ): Because it s a better deal than the SON. Another answer (Locke s): John Locke Because legitimate civil government exists to protect our God-given inalienable natural rights to life, liberty and property; government can only be made legitimate through the consent of the governed. Rawls s Theory of Justice John Rawls's ( ) theory follows the SCT tradition and develops a contractarian view of justice. Justice, according to Rawls, is the solution to a problem: Rawls People (notoriously) disagree about values (i.e., about the nature of the good life and about how benefits and burdens of social cooperation ought to be distributed), yet they have an interest in securing the benefits of cooperation 4

5 Outline of Rawls s Theory We may strongly disagree about values, -- i.e., about what is good (you think that modesty is good, I think that sensual pleasure is good; you want ecstasy, I want sobriety), but (if we are motivated to cooperate) we may at least be able to agree on some minimal account of what is right. Benefits of Cooperation: Society, on Rawls s view, is a cooperative venture between free and equal persons for their mutual advantage; cooperation makes life better (recall Hobbes) because it increases the stock of primary goods Primary Goods Whatever it is rational to want, irrespective of whatever else you want. (e.g., health, material resources, rights, social bases of self-respect, etc.) The Basic Idea: We can identify an acceptable conception of justice by asking what rights and what principles for the distribution of primary goods it would be reasonable for all members of society to agree to. Justice as fairness : If everyone accepts that the rules are fair and the rules are applied consistently, then we have fairness 5

6 The Setup But how do we know which principles are fair? How do we determine what reasonable people would agree to? Rawls s (rather clever) suggestion is that we can see for ourselves what ought to count as fair principles by performing a thought experiment. Rawls: Imagine what principles would be chosen be people in the following special (imaginary) situation The Original Position (OP) Your task: To choose the basic principles by which the basic institutions of society will governed. To ensure impartiality, you are placed under special conditions All knowledge of your preferences, talents, handicaps and social standing is hidden from you so as to remove factors which might bias your decision in your favour. You do, however, have knowledge of issues which would not be biasing (social scientific knowledge, knowledge about what human beings need in order to live, etc.). 6

7 The Veil of Ignorance Persons in the OP are thus said to be under the 'veil of ignorance'. They do not know their interests, their place in society, their personal characteristics or their particular conception of the good. I.e., they are mutually disinterested moral agents (recall Mill). In the OP agents have no way off knowing, or determining the odds, who they will turn out to be once the veil of ignorance comes off: You could be, winner or loser, a beggar or a millionaire, etc.. Perfect Procedural Justice The OP though experiment is meant to model (albeit imperfectly) what Rawls calls perfect procedural justice The basic idea: I cut, you choose By choosing the right procedure, injustice is made selfdefeating. 7

8 Rawls argues that people in the original position would choose certain principles of justice, rather than some other ones (e.g., strict equalitarianism or utilitarian principles). So what will people in the OP choose? In other words, what are the principles of justice, according to Rawls? Rawls's Principles of Justice The First Principle (The Liberty Principle) Each person has an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of equal liberty for all. The Second Principle Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged (the Difference Principle ) and b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Priority Rule The two principles are in lexical order. The first principle has priority over the second, so that all citizens are assured the equal basic liberties; similarly, part (b) of the second principle has priority over part (a), so that the conditions of fair equality of opportunity are guaranteed for everyone. 8

9 If these principles characterize (or very nearly characterize) the basic institutions of a society, then that society is just. These principles are the outcome of a kind of bargaining process (though it is not proper bargaining, since individuals do not know their own interests), but the duty to abide by them does not itself derive from the contract. Instead, citizens can simply recognize for themselves that the rules are beneficial and fair (i.e., their freedom and equality are respected) and, accordingly, agree to be bound by them. SCT: A Lot to Love 1. Rules are justified insofar as they are to our mutual advantage but no further. Probably all rational people have an interest in rules that proscribe lyin, cheatin, unjustified killin, etc. Such rules are necessary if we are to cooperate for our mutual benefit. But it s at least not obvious that all rational people have an interest in rules against homosexuality, sodomy, private recreational drug use, etc. SCT makes clear (at least to some extent) was is, and what is not, our business. 9

10 2. The justification for following rules is a rational justification. When it comes to the law (i.e., political rules), it is (always?) rational to avoid coercive punishment; when it comes to morality, it is (always?) rational to avoid informal negative sanctions blame, shame, distrust, etc. More importantly, our (tacit) acceptance of the SC rationally commits us to adopt the intentions and dispositions of compliance. 3. Cooperation is made dependent on reciprocity. When someone violates the terms of the SC, we have a clear explanation of why we are entitled to treat them differently they have broken the agreement. (Hobbes: They have returned to the SON; effectively declared war against the rest of us.) This implies a theory of punishment. Punishment is justified because a) the violator has violated the norms of reciprocity and b) the SC as a whole depends on enforcement. 10

11 4. We can see fairly clearly what morality does, and does not, require of us. That is, SCT allows us to distinguish between the obligatory and the supererogatory. SCT does require some self-sacrifice (e.g., obeying the law, paying taxes), but it also suggests limits. For one thing, being asked literally to lay down your life raises questions about enforceability ( What are you going to do, kill me? ) More generally, however, SCT can t demand from us compliance with rules that are so onerous that others won t follow them. 11