Social Contract Theory

The State of Nature

One way to understand Thomas Hobbess (1588-1679) version of social
contract theory is to start with his notion of a state of nature. A state of
nature, as Hobbes describes it, is a state in which there are no government
institutions no police, no military, no courts, etc. In addition, four basic
facts of human life are important aspects of a state of nature:
1. equality of need (people have essentially the same basic needs, such as
food, shelter, etc.);
2. rough equality of power (while some people are somewhat stronger or
more powerful than others, no one is so much more powerful as to be
invincible others could unite to subdue them);
3. limited altruism (Hobbes believed that people are generally or largely
egoistic, in other words, they usually act from self-interested motives);
4. scarcity of resources (often the supply of the resources required to meet
peoples needs is not sufficient there is not enough of a resource to go
around).

The State of Nature

If these four facts are combined with the absence of
government institutions, as they are in Hobbess
mythical state of nature, the results are very
unfavorable. Hobbes describes life in a state of nature
as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short: a war of
all against all in which everyone competes for scarce
resources to meet their own needs.

Escaping The State of Nature

Since life in a state of nature is bound to be miserable,
people want to escape or avoid it. In order to do so,
they develop and adopt a) a social contract, and b)
some way(s) of enforcing the social contract.
A social contract is a set of rules governing social
interactions. Some of the rules are laws, others are
mutually understood moral norms.

Implications for Morality

The point of morality according to Hobbess social
contract theory is to help us escape or avoid a state of
nature, so that we can live better and more
productive lives. The nature of morality is as follows:
it is the set of rules, governing behavior, that
rational people will accept, on the condition that
others accept them as well. Rational people accept
the social contract because it facilitates harmonious
social living.

Escaping The State of Nature

While people living in a state of nature have
unrestricted liberty, obeying a social contract involves
giving up some liberties (e.g., the liberty to murder or
assault each other) on the condition that other people
will do the same.
Enforcement of the social contracts laws is carried
out by government institutions; however, moral
rules are enforced by social disapproval.

Sovereignty and Legitimacy

When individuals give up some liberty and freedom, they by necessity

delegate power to a sovereign, and therefore grant sovereignty to this
entity.
Sovereignty, in political theory, is term designating supreme authority over
some polity (group of ruled individuals). In layman's terms, it means a state
or a governing body has the full right and power to govern itself without
any interference from outside sources or bodies.
Sovereigns may be viewed as legitimate or illegitimate by the governed. In
political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority,
usually a government or a rgime. Political legitimacy is considered a basic
condition for governing, without which a government will suffer deadlock
and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular
rgimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small,
influential lite, who often use their monopoly of force (violence) to
sustain power.

Escaping The State of Nature

For Hobbes, The Social Contract is the most fundamental source of all that is good
and that which we depend upon to live well. Our choice is either to abide by the
terms of the contract, or return to the State of Nature, which Hobbes argues no
reasonable person could possibly prefer.
Given his rather severe view of human nature, Hobbes nonetheless manages to
create an argument that makes civil society, along with all its advantages, possible.
Within the context of the political events of his England, he also managed to argue
for a continuation of the traditional form of authority that his society had long since
enjoyed a monarchy while nonetheless placing it on what he saw as a far more
acceptable foundation.
For Hobbes, the necessity of an absolute authority, in the form of a Sovereign, or
king, followed from the utter brutality of the State of Nature. The State of Nature
was completely intolerable, and so rational men would be willing to submit
themselves even to absolute authority in order to escape it.
Hobbes was arguing for a middle ground between early democratic thought (during
the English Civil War) and an absolutist hereditary monarchy with no philosophical
justification.

Lockes State of Nature

Although Hobbes was very influential in the formation of

American political thought, John Lockes (1632-1704) views
were perhaps even more crucial.
For Locke the State of Nature is a very different type of place,
and so his argument concerning the social contract and the
nature of mens relationship to authority are consequently
quite different. While Locke uses Hobbes device of the State of
Nature, as do virtually all social contract theorists, he uses it to
a quite different end. Lockes arguments for the social contract,
and for the right of citizens to revolt against their king were
enormously influential on the democratic revolutions that
followed, especially on Thomas Jefferson, and the founders of
the United States.

Lockes State of Nature

According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state
of perfect and complete liberty to conduct ones life as one best sees fit, free from
the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of anarchy:
one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to
be in ones interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil
authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a
state without morality.
The State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. Persons are assumed to
be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering
and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Lockes view
the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others
with regards to their life, health, liberty, or possessions. Because we all belong
equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are
prohibited from harming one another. So, Lockes State of Nature is a state of liberty
where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from
interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes
upon persons, it is relatively peaceful.

Lockes State of Nature

Political society comes into being when individual men, representing
their families, come together in the State of Nature and agree to each
give up the executive power to punish those who transgress the Law
of Nature, and hand over that power to the public power of a
government. Having done this, they then become subject to the will
of the majority. In other words, by making a compact to leave the
State of Nature and form society, they make one body politic under
one government and submit themselves to the will of that body.
Having created a political society and government through their
consent, men then gain three things which they lacked in the State of
Nature: laws, judges to adjudicate laws, and the executive power
necessary to enforce these laws. Each man therefore gives over the
power to protect himself and punish transgressors of the Law of
Nature to the government that he has created through the compact.

Locke Returning to the State of Nature

Given that the end of mens uniting into common-wealths is the preservation of
their wealth, and preserving their lives, liberty, and well-being in general, Locke can
easily imagine the conditions under which the compact with government is
destroyed, and men are justified in resisting the authority of a civil government, such
as a King.
When the executive power of a government devolves into tyranny, such as by
dissolving the legislature and therefore denying the people the ability to make laws
for their own preservation, then the resulting tyrant puts himself into a State of
Nature, and specifically into a state of war with the people, and they then have the
same right to self-defense as they had before making a compact to establish society
in the first place.
When the king becomes a tyrant and acts against the interests of the people, they
have a right, if not an outright obligation, to resist his authority. The social compact
can be dissolved and the process to create political society begun anew.

This idea becomes one of the foundations of American revolutionary political

thought.

The Prisoners Dilemma

The prisoners dilemma scenario provides another, more modern, kind of
argument for social contract theory. The standard version of the scenario: You
are arrested in a totalitarian (no fair judicial system) society, and accused of
treason. Specifically, you are accused of conspiring against the government
with a person named Smith.
Even though you say you are innocent and do not even know Smith, your
captors press for a confession, and offer you the following deal: if you confess
and Smith does too, you each get five years in prison; if you confess and
Smith does not (snitching on Smith) , you go free while he serves ten
years; if you do not confess but Smith does (Smith snitches on you), you
serve ten years while he goes free; and if neither of you confess they will
have to release you both after one year.

You Confess

You Do Not
Confess

Smith Confesses

5 You, 5 Smith

10 You, 0 Smith

Smith Does Not

Confess

0 You, 10 Smith

1 You, 1 Smith

The Prisoners Dilemma

Your captors inform you that they are offering Smith the same deal;
but they do not let you talk with him. Assuming that you are a
rational egoist, which of the options presented in the deal should you
choose? In other words, which option is it in our own interest to
choose?
The answer is that you should confess, because you will be better
off confessing than not confessing whether Smith confesses or not
(in other words, the left column result has the least risk than the
right in either row). Supposing that Smith is rational (and selfinterested) too, though, he will confess as well. (Studies have
demonstrated this again and again.) So you will both get five years
still not a very good result.

You Confess

You Do Not
Confess

Smith Confesses

5 You, 5 Smith

10 You, 0 Smith

Smith Does Not

Confess

0 You, 10 Smith

1 You, 1 Smith

The Prisoners Dilemma + Communication

If the situation were changed so that you could
communicate with Smith and reach an agreement
about what to do (and if we assume that the
agreement would be enforced somehow, so you can
be confident that it will be kept), then it would be
rational to agree that neither of you will confess. In
that case, you would each be released after only one
year. Obviously this is a better result than if you both
confessed.

The Prisoners Dilemma Conclusions?

The conclusion social contractarians draw from the
dilemma is that we are better off if we cooperate,
adopting an (enforced) agreement or social contract,
than we would be if we acted as independent
egoists (in other words, as people who pursue their
own interests without cooperation or agreement).

The Prisoners Dilemma Conclusions?

The prisoners dilemma is a very artificial situation, of course; but
there are many real situations that are similar in the sense that
independent egoism will produce worse results than accepting a
social contract.
Suppose, for example, that two timber or logging companies operate
in the forests of a particular region; but the forests are shrinking at an
alarming rate as a result. If the companies act as competing
independent egoists cutting down as many trees as they can, they
may destroy the forests and, therefore, their businesses.
Alternatively, however, they might adopt a social contract (and
enforcement procedures) requiring them to limit the number of trees
they can harvest in a given period of time, plant new trees, etc. an
agreement which would be mutually beneficial, leaving both
companies better off than they would be without it.

Problems with the Social Contract - Free Riders

When a society adopts a social contract, some members of the society may of course
break the contract, or reap the benefits of the contract without participating.

Example 1 - Someone might try to cut in line (in traffic, at a movie theater, etc.) rather
than going to the back of the line, for instance taking advantage of other peoples
obedience to the first come, first served rule an accepted social norm to get ahead
of them. A person who breaks contracts in this way is a free rider. Free riders do
sometimes gain an advantage over those who obey contracts, particularly when
sanctions are mild or contracts are not regularly enforced.
Example 2 Police and Fire protection is extended to all citizens within a political
boundary (city, county, state, country). However, some citizens may avoid paying the
taxes that pay for these services, yet they are still afforded protection.
Example 3 In a labor union, free riding occurs if an employee pays no union dues or
agency shop fees (in right to work states), but benefits when a union negotiates a pay
raise for an entire class of employees.

Free Riders Also a Problem for Privatizing Public

Goods
In some instances, the problem of free-riders would make it almost
impossible to let the private sector provide public goods. National
defense is probably the best example of this. Say the government let
private companies provide national defense, and in theory only those
who paid their defense fee to the company would be protected in
the event of war. This would be almost unmanageable in a war.
Armies defend territory on a large scale, and it would be strategically
and tactically impossible to sort out who in a city had paid for
protection, and who hadnt.

Critics of the Social Contract

Critics have sometimes objected to social contract theory on
the grounds that we do not sign or even implicitly agree to a
contract setting out the moral rules of our society.
Those who argue the benefits of the social contract believe
the central claim of the theory is that morality is the set of
rules that are rationally acceptable (in other words, rules
rational people will accept on the condition that others
accept them as well) rather than an actual contract to
which people have actually agreed.

Critics of the Social Contract

Another objection to social contract theory discussed is that
the theory does not show why we should obey ethical rules
governing the way we treat members of vulnerable groups
(e.g., oppressed minorities). If members of such groups
have little or no power, and therefore pose little or no threat
to other members of society, then it is not clear why it would
be rational for those other members of society to accept a
contract requiring fair or ethical treatment of them they
seem to have nothing to gain from ethical treatment of the
disempowered.

John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance

Although the idea of a social contract has been criticized, especially in the
modern era, thinkers such as John Rawls (1921-2002), have developed a
justification of why we should follow the contract and not oppress vulnerable
groups.
So what is the incentive for founders of a society to protect the rights of all, even
future generations?
Rawls suggests that founders should use the idea of a veil of ignorance to block
off the knowledge concerning who will be advantaged or disadvantaged in any
society they create. Because of this, one does not know what burdens and
benefits of social cooperation might fall to him/her once the veil is lifted. With
this knowledge blocked, parties to the original position must decide on principles
for the distribution of rights, positions and resources in their society. "...no one
knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know
his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities and the like."

Rawls's Veil of Ignorance

The idea then, is to remove those personal considerations
that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of
principles meant to allocate the benefits of social
cooperation.
For example, in the imaginary society, one might or might
not be intelligent, rich, or born into a preferred class. Since
one may occupy any position in the society once the veil is
lifted, the device forces the parties to consider society from
the perspective of all members, including the worst-off and
best-off members.

Rawls's Veil of Ignorance

This idea has informed many political movements in the US. For example,
the idea that we should take care of the environment, or that we should
not leave massive national debt for future generations.

Evaluating the Social Contract

Many authors have suggested that one strength of the social contract theory is
that it gives us a plausible answer to the question Why should we obey moral
rules?: We should obey them because doing so is beneficial to us, since they
facilitate harmonious social living.
If we accept this approach, it also suggests that the social contract theory
provides a plausible answer to the question Which moral rules should we
accept? The answer is that we should accept those rules which facilitate
harmonious social living. Rules prohibiting murder, assault, rape, and theft, for
example, clearly do so.
However, its not always so clear whether or not the social contract supports
rules prohibiting other behaviors, and societies can come into great conflict
when deciding on these other rules. Think: Prohibition in the 1920s.

What are the Advantages of Social Contract

Theory?
It answers these questions:
What rules should we follow, and how are they justified?
Why is it reasonable to follow rules?
When can we break the rules?
Is there an objective (egoistic, non-religious) basis to morality?

Sources For further Reading.

https://philosophy.tamucc.edu/readings/professional-ethics/socialcontract-theory-summary?destination=node%2F138
http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/