The Social Contract Theory
Todays media and entertainment have recently been flooded with movies and TV shows based on a post apocalyptic world where the world has fallen into disarray and it has become every man for themselves. While there have been many terrible crimes against humanity our world hasn’t submitted to dissolution and in large part we have remained united. The reason the world hasn’t fallen back into such a primitive state is because of the social contract theory; the social contract theory is a theory about creating rules for humanity. Due to the social contract theory people had to change the way they thought and made decisions and these personal decisions eventually had a ripple effect on the larger community. Unlike theories in physical science, social
…show more content…
science theories, such as the social contract theory, are not completely sound and are subject to some flaws. Given that there are some flaws in the theory today’s societies are much better off with the principles of the social contract theory than without them. In the beginning the world was in what in what is known today as the state of nature. A state of nature exists when a majority of the population has a generally self-centered mindset. Everyone is only interested in achieving their own personal goals and they don’t think that much about helping those around them. There is no government or centralized power to control people or refrain them from achieving their selfish goals by any means. For example a farmer living in the state of nature would have no guarantee that thieves won’t constantly steal his crops. The people stealing the crops would mainly think about the crops as a source of food for themselves. The two would probably fight over the crops because everyone is competing for the same limited resources, and there is no central authority to enforce laws against stealing.
The social contract theory helps to end a state of nature by getting people to follow its guidelines.
There are no set rules to follow in the theory, but theory states that rules of the society should be based off of what free, equal, and rational people would agree to. Free, equal and rational people would not allow things such as killing, stealing, lying and discrimination to exist. To get these rules to work the individuals in the civilization must understand that they are much better off when they agree to trust in one another, and that these established rules will bring safety and stability. The rules of the society should not only benefit those who cooperate but they should also penalize those who don’t. It is critical that a central power or government exists to enforce these rules as well. If there is simply a law that states that people who steal will go to jail for a period of time but there is no one to ensure that the person goes and stays in jail, then the law is essentially useless. Although these principles date back thousands of years to when humanity ended an era of nomads and hunter-gatherers and began to establish tribes and modern civilizations, the principles were not brought to the forefront of discussions until the late …show more content…
1500’s.
The person who started these discussions was Thomas Hobbes; he is also credited for founding modern contractarianism. Hobbes wrote Levithan in 1651, and in it he wrote the first description of the state of nature. Since Hobbes was in England during the English Civil War he had a first hand account of something similar to the state of nature. His founding for the idea of the state of nature was based on his belief that humans are innately self-interested. The prisoner’s dilemma helps prove Hobbes’ point that people are better of when they cooperate with each other under a social contract. The prisoner’s dilemma is a hypothetical scenario in which two people are arrested for a crime. They are put into different rooms and told that if they both confess they will four years in jail, if one confesses and the other doesn’t then the person who confesses walks away with no jail time and the other person will get six years, and lastly if they both say nothing they will each get two years in jail. The best choice is for both of them to remain silent and take the two years each. Since they are both deeply self-interested they will both confess and try to walk away with no jail sentence, because that is the best individual outcome. Instead they will both get four years for confessing, but if they were in a social contract with one another they could have banded together and avoided they extra two years.
The benefits of cooperation is just one of the many strengths of contractarianism. The alliance between two people, and people and the government helps provide a more stable and secure society. Some refute the theory saying that people who follow contractarianism, but live in a state of nature are at a disadvantage to everyone else. Many contractarians agree that if the surrounding society is in a state of nature, no one is forced to follow the rules and get left behind for the sake of being a more moral person. People are bound to the contract as long as everyone else is following the rules as well. On a similar note if the society has established rules, but they are not rules that free, equal, and rational people would abide by then individuals are not required to follow that set of rules. Civil rights activists such as Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King protested during the 1960’s. They came to realize that the present laws discriminated against African Americans and fought for the rights they deserved. This one of the times they were justified in breaking the rules, because they did it peacefully and didn’t intend to cause a state of nature. This also helps to prove why the social contract theory is a better choice than cultural relativism, which is another theory for a societal structure. Cultural relativism says that any action is ok as long as that culture approves of it, and no one society is right or wrong in its views just because they each approve of something different. On the basis of relativism one society could allow the use of Nazi concentration camps and someone else can’t say they are definitively wrong and should change their laws, because the people in that society may approve of it. Through the contract theory denying someone of their right to live will always be recognized as wrong because free, equal, and rational people wouldn’t establish rules for a society where killing innocent civilians was allowed. This same reasoning can be applied anytime there is debate over whether a law is practical. The main point that most contractarians use when debating the contract theory is that it is better than the alternative of a state of nature. Even in societies where people are not treated as fairly as others or the government is corrupt, living in that society is better than living in the state of nature.
Although there are many positives of the social contract theory there are still some imperfections that leave it open to debate.
One of the main arguments is that not everyone is always going to follow the rules. There is the issue of free riders; people who benefit from everyone else’s contribution to society but don’t contribute anything themselves. While it may be unfair to others, it isn’t irrational to get the same benefits as someone else for free. If a family is cooking thanksgiving dinner and one person who didn’t help cook just shows up to eat, that person made the more rational decision. Also that person isn’t disrupting any part of society because the dinner still got made on time without them. On the opposite end of free riders are those in power who seek to gain more power or to keep control of what they already have. An example of this would be wealthy plantation owners who had slaves working on hundreds of acres of land. In those days people thought that black slaves weren’t whole humans and were barely different from animals, so to them they were not denying any free equal people of their rights. They can easily rationalize it, as being ok because having slaves is more efficient than the owner’s small family trying to farm hundreds of acres of land, and its saves more money because they aren’t hiring outside contractors for the work. Obviously now people know that slavery is wrong but during that timeframe it is hard to say how it goes against the social
contract theory. In a more present issue there are calculating amoralists who try and cheat their way through life. A calculating amoralist is someone who ignores moral rules because they know that they can get away with it. An example of an amoralist would be someone who decides to cheat on a test in school. They are ignoring the moral rule not to cheat, but at the same time they are not harming anyone, they are making a rational choice to improve their self-interest of getting good grades. This also brings up another issue of given consent. Many would argue that cheating would violate an honor code that many schools have. There are times where the honor code is an actual written or typed document that has to be signed but often times it is just implied that students will follow the honor code. If there is not signed honor code then the student never consented to enter into contract with the school or that teacher so they aren’t bound to follow that policy.
Regardless of how much people agree with all of the aspects of the theory there is no denying that it has changed how people make their decisions. Individuals are less inclined to only think of their self-interests, and start to make decisions that will be more favorable to the entire community. Since the theory also requires a strong authoritative figure to enforce its rules people are more motivated to make ethical decisions, because punishment will be administered when unethical actions are discovered. Changes in these small day-to-day choices will spread throughout the communities and eventually the ideals of the society as a whole will be transformed. These are some ways that it affects personal decision making, but there are also ways that it directly evaluates how we should deal with global issues.
20th century theorist John Rawls helped expand the scope of the social contract theory by creating a way to address humanities obligation to the poor. He suggested when attempting to determine rules for a new society imagining standing behind a veil of ignorance. Theoretically this veil doesn’t allow the individual to know their role in society. The individual doesn’t know their race, religion, gender, wealth, social status, etc. When people are oblivious to these key personal factors they tend to choose more general policies that help out all members of society. Without the veil people would continue to make biased decisions that may not better serve society. Rawls veil isn’t just for assessing the poor, but it can also be applied to other global issues such as starvation, racial and gender discrimination, gay rights, border control and taking in refugees.
science theories, such as the social contract theory, are not completely sound and are subject to some flaws. Given that there are some flaws in the theory today’s societies are much better off with the principles of the social contract theory than without them. In the beginning the world was in what in what is known today as the state of nature. A state of nature exists when a majority of the population has a generally self-centered mindset. Everyone is only interested in achieving their own personal goals and they don’t think that much about helping those around them. There is no government or centralized power to control people or refrain them from achieving their selfish goals by any means. For example a farmer living in the state of nature would have no guarantee that thieves won’t constantly steal his crops. The people stealing the crops would mainly think about the crops as a source of food for themselves. The two would probably fight over the crops because everyone is competing for the same limited resources, and there is no central authority to enforce laws against stealing.
The social contract theory helps to end a state of nature by getting people to follow its guidelines.
There are no set rules to follow in the theory, but theory states that rules of the society should be based off of what free, equal, and rational people would agree to. Free, equal and rational people would not allow things such as killing, stealing, lying and discrimination to exist. To get these rules to work the individuals in the civilization must understand that they are much better off when they agree to trust in one another, and that these established rules will bring safety and stability. The rules of the society should not only benefit those who cooperate but they should also penalize those who don’t. It is critical that a central power or government exists to enforce these rules as well. If there is simply a law that states that people who steal will go to jail for a period of time but there is no one to ensure that the person goes and stays in jail, then the law is essentially useless. Although these principles date back thousands of years to when humanity ended an era of nomads and hunter-gatherers and began to establish tribes and modern civilizations, the principles were not brought to the forefront of discussions until the late …show more content…
1500’s.
The person who started these discussions was Thomas Hobbes; he is also credited for founding modern contractarianism. Hobbes wrote Levithan in 1651, and in it he wrote the first description of the state of nature. Since Hobbes was in England during the English Civil War he had a first hand account of something similar to the state of nature. His founding for the idea of the state of nature was based on his belief that humans are innately self-interested. The prisoner’s dilemma helps prove Hobbes’ point that people are better of when they cooperate with each other under a social contract. The prisoner’s dilemma is a hypothetical scenario in which two people are arrested for a crime. They are put into different rooms and told that if they both confess they will four years in jail, if one confesses and the other doesn’t then the person who confesses walks away with no jail time and the other person will get six years, and lastly if they both say nothing they will each get two years in jail. The best choice is for both of them to remain silent and take the two years each. Since they are both deeply self-interested they will both confess and try to walk away with no jail sentence, because that is the best individual outcome. Instead they will both get four years for confessing, but if they were in a social contract with one another they could have banded together and avoided they extra two years.
The benefits of cooperation is just one of the many strengths of contractarianism. The alliance between two people, and people and the government helps provide a more stable and secure society. Some refute the theory saying that people who follow contractarianism, but live in a state of nature are at a disadvantage to everyone else. Many contractarians agree that if the surrounding society is in a state of nature, no one is forced to follow the rules and get left behind for the sake of being a more moral person. People are bound to the contract as long as everyone else is following the rules as well. On a similar note if the society has established rules, but they are not rules that free, equal, and rational people would abide by then individuals are not required to follow that set of rules. Civil rights activists such as Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King protested during the 1960’s. They came to realize that the present laws discriminated against African Americans and fought for the rights they deserved. This one of the times they were justified in breaking the rules, because they did it peacefully and didn’t intend to cause a state of nature. This also helps to prove why the social contract theory is a better choice than cultural relativism, which is another theory for a societal structure. Cultural relativism says that any action is ok as long as that culture approves of it, and no one society is right or wrong in its views just because they each approve of something different. On the basis of relativism one society could allow the use of Nazi concentration camps and someone else can’t say they are definitively wrong and should change their laws, because the people in that society may approve of it. Through the contract theory denying someone of their right to live will always be recognized as wrong because free, equal, and rational people wouldn’t establish rules for a society where killing innocent civilians was allowed. This same reasoning can be applied anytime there is debate over whether a law is practical. The main point that most contractarians use when debating the contract theory is that it is better than the alternative of a state of nature. Even in societies where people are not treated as fairly as others or the government is corrupt, living in that society is better than living in the state of nature.
Although there are many positives of the social contract theory there are still some imperfections that leave it open to debate.
One of the main arguments is that not everyone is always going to follow the rules. There is the issue of free riders; people who benefit from everyone else’s contribution to society but don’t contribute anything themselves. While it may be unfair to others, it isn’t irrational to get the same benefits as someone else for free. If a family is cooking thanksgiving dinner and one person who didn’t help cook just shows up to eat, that person made the more rational decision. Also that person isn’t disrupting any part of society because the dinner still got made on time without them. On the opposite end of free riders are those in power who seek to gain more power or to keep control of what they already have. An example of this would be wealthy plantation owners who had slaves working on hundreds of acres of land. In those days people thought that black slaves weren’t whole humans and were barely different from animals, so to them they were not denying any free equal people of their rights. They can easily rationalize it, as being ok because having slaves is more efficient than the owner’s small family trying to farm hundreds of acres of land, and its saves more money because they aren’t hiring outside contractors for the work. Obviously now people know that slavery is wrong but during that timeframe it is hard to say how it goes against the social
contract theory. In a more present issue there are calculating amoralists who try and cheat their way through life. A calculating amoralist is someone who ignores moral rules because they know that they can get away with it. An example of an amoralist would be someone who decides to cheat on a test in school. They are ignoring the moral rule not to cheat, but at the same time they are not harming anyone, they are making a rational choice to improve their self-interest of getting good grades. This also brings up another issue of given consent. Many would argue that cheating would violate an honor code that many schools have. There are times where the honor code is an actual written or typed document that has to be signed but often times it is just implied that students will follow the honor code. If there is not signed honor code then the student never consented to enter into contract with the school or that teacher so they aren’t bound to follow that policy.
Regardless of how much people agree with all of the aspects of the theory there is no denying that it has changed how people make their decisions. Individuals are less inclined to only think of their self-interests, and start to make decisions that will be more favorable to the entire community. Since the theory also requires a strong authoritative figure to enforce its rules people are more motivated to make ethical decisions, because punishment will be administered when unethical actions are discovered. Changes in these small day-to-day choices will spread throughout the communities and eventually the ideals of the society as a whole will be transformed. These are some ways that it affects personal decision making, but there are also ways that it directly evaluates how we should deal with global issues.
20th century theorist John Rawls helped expand the scope of the social contract theory by creating a way to address humanities obligation to the poor. He suggested when attempting to determine rules for a new society imagining standing behind a veil of ignorance. Theoretically this veil doesn’t allow the individual to know their role in society. The individual doesn’t know their race, religion, gender, wealth, social status, etc. When people are oblivious to these key personal factors they tend to choose more general policies that help out all members of society. Without the veil people would continue to make biased decisions that may not better serve society. Rawls veil isn’t just for assessing the poor, but it can also be applied to other global issues such as starvation, racial and gender discrimination, gay rights, border control and taking in refugees.