A view of morality I am hearing more and more about in the public circle is the social contract theory. Contractarianism holds that “morality rests on a tacit agreement between rationally self-interested individuals to abide by certain rules because it is to their mutual advantage to do so.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> There is nothing intrinsically wrong with murder, rape, or torture, for example, but since rational self-interested persons do not want these things being done to them, they agree to extend the same courtesy to others.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> Philosopher, Edward Feser, offers at least six helpful criticisms of Contractarianism:
1. It’s really not a moral theory at all. It is a truce from Hobbes’ “war of all against all.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–> It is a replacement of morality for practicalities. Ultimately, contractarianism is the opposite of morality because morality often involves the denial of one’s self-interest. Contractarianism is the enshrining of selfishness.
2. One need only pretend to abide by the social contract. Since one behaves “morally” only in their own self-interest (not because they have an objective moral obligation to do so), then if they can secretly behave in ways that are opposed to others’ self-interests and get away with it, they have done nothing wrong.
3. There is no moral justification for claiming one ought to abide by the social contract.
4. Cannot say anyone is immoral. At best, they are being foolish for breaking the social contract, for in doing so they are working against their own self-interest.
5. Cannot provide any meaningful boundaries/restraints for punishing those who go outside the social contract. Why not kill those who steal? Why not torture them? What would be wrong with these punishments? We may choose not to, but contractarian theory offers no reason why we can’t should we choose to.
6. Fails to invoke moral duties to those outside the social contract, such as the mentally retarded. These people cannot assent to the contract, and since they cannot harm someone else, there is no reason to make a contract with them. Why not just kill a retarded person because we had a bad day at work?
Just like moral relativism (a close cousin), social contract theory is bankrupt as a moral philosophy.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>Edward Feser, “Contract Schmontract”; available from http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012306B; Internet; accessed 02 February 2006.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–>Ibid.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–>Ibid.
May 8, 2007 at 7:18 am
Social contract is bankrupt because people have not, and would not, assent to such a contract. Under contract theory, you need everyone to assent, but they clearly have not assented. Once you admit that government action is morally unacceptable without the assent of the governed, you’ve given up the ghost.
One recent trick was John Rawls’ claim that people would assent to his bizarre and immoral views if they did not know their future status (the veil of ignorance). He claims that the only reason anybody would disagree with him is self-interest, so if they were put back in the original place (which doesn’t exist BTW), not knowing what position they’ll end up in life, they’d agree with him.
Two primary problems with Rawls.
First, his theory is clearly debunked by reality. Liberals are constantly bemoaning that the poor and middle class “vote against their interests,” choosing policies that are moral rather than immoral assaults against job creaters (aka “the rich”). Thus, even KNOWING that they are not rich, they vote for policies of economic freedom. That alone is the death knell for Rawls.
Second, it’s irrelevant how people WOULD vote. Either you actually agreed to the contract or you did not. Try arguing in court that somebody should be held accountable for the terms in an unsigned contract because, if they weren’t selfish, they would have signed it. Pure rubbish.
LikeLike
May 9, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Arthur,
I’m not an expert in contractarianism, but I don’t think the system requires that everyone assent to the social contract—only that the vast majority do. And according to social contract theory, the majority will want to agree to the contract because as rational people, it is in their best interest to do so. Only the irrational would refuse it. Society even has to contract how they will deal with those who refuse to abide by the contract.
Jason
LikeLike
May 9, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Jason,
My understanding is that it must be unanimous, at least among reasonable people.
“The social contract is that fundamental compact that consists of the rules imposing basic duties, assigning rights, and distributing the benefits of political, social, and economic cooperation, unanimously agreed to by reasonable people in a state of perfect equality and absolute impartiality.“
[Note: this is a more recent Rawlsian formulation, focusing on “reasonable people” rather than the earlier Roussean requiring true unanimous consent. You can’t enslave others and claim they agreed to be enslaved, even though they didn’t actually agree, because their agreement is somehow “unreasonable.” Reasonableness is a tool of philosophical totalitarianism.]
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_1_60/ai_59021331/pg_3
“Since the legitimacy of the social contract depends upon the unanimous consent of all the governed, the sovereign general will is fully expressed only in an assembly of the entire population. Even the effort to establish a representative legislative body is an illusion, according to Rousseau, since the general will can be determined only by each for all.”
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5d.htm
So no, a majority is insufficient. Under contract theory, government action is only legitimate if everyone agrees to surrender freedom to the greater whole. And that has never happened, and never will happen.
LikeLike
May 10, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Arthur,
I have a hard time seeing how SCT can require a unanimous agreement. First, on a practical level that sort of agreement is practically untenable for virtually any given issue, particularly the more you increase the population size. Secondly, if that was true, then there could never be changes to the contract. Yet, there are changes to the social contract, so it can’t require unanimous agreement.
Rawls quote disagrees with what I just said, but his qualifier almost makes his point meaningless. All a SCT has to say when there is not unanimous agreement is that those in the minority are not being reasonable, and thus they proceed with the contract without them. On a practical level you still end up with a less-than-unanimous agreement. You simply justify it.
Do SCT believe we anyone is living under a SCT today, or just in the past in ancient civilization?
Jason
LikeLike
February 8, 2018 at 9:45 pm
I totally agree. I don’t know how this is not obvious to everyone else.
LikeLike
February 9, 2018 at 7:49 am
Joe:
“There is nothing intrinsically wrong with murder, rape, or torture, for example”……anything said after this is ludicrous and completely without merit. It’s like putting the cart before the force. It is the acts of murder, rape and torture that are hideous, not because the acts are acceptable. The missing ingredient in the statement is called common sense
I don’t know how anyone cannot see the obvious …………..
That statement shows the stupidity of extrapolation to the nth degree, any conclusion, after to this nonsense premise, is necessarily bound to have conclusions without a common sense foundation.
Based on this, the philosopher using that nonsense illogicality premise, can offer nothing helpful to h/is/er stupidity.
In today’s vernacular we call this a Trumpian conclusion; aka, religious insanity.
LikeLike
February 9, 2018 at 7:52 am
Even after 11 years of that posting, the stupidity continues. It is no small wonder then why every generation keeps counting the ribs to see if the man and woman have different number of ribs.
So Lolable if it wasn’t so piteous.
LikeLike
March 16, 2019 at 8:44 pm
Leo writes,
Excepting that one man’s “common sense” is another man’s atrocity. Simply asserting that something is immoral doesn’t make it so. On what basis do you say this is wrong and that is okay? Without an argument, your statements amount to empty hand-waiving. And if you can say, “I’m right because I say so, somebody like Stalin or Hitler can say the same. You have to have something more than an empty assertion.
The SCT fails for the reasons Jason cites. It provides no objective standard upon which actions can be morally weighed and is actually a vehicle for great evil.
LikeLike