A view of morality you’ll hear a lot in the public square is 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.”1 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.2 Philosopher, Edward Feser, offers at least six helpful criticisms of Contractarianism:
- It’s really not a moral theory at all. It is a truce from Hobbes’ “war of all against all.” 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.
- 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.
- There is no moral justification for claiming one ought to abide by the social contract.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?3
Just like moral relativism (a close cousin), social contract theory is bankrupt as a moral philosophy.
__________________________________________________
- Edward Feser, “Contract Schmontract”; once available from http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012306B; Internet; accessed 02 February 2006.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
Thinking to Believe 
June 11, 2022 at 3:57 am
I agree. Transactional morality breaks down if one person is not in a position to potentially negatively affect another. Good thing we have genetic predispositions to enhance social cohesion. Other species have it too; piranhas don’t attack each other even when it is advantageous for them to do so.
But this sentence gave me pause, since it pertains to Christian philosophy:
“Just like moral relativism (a close cousin), social contract theory is bankrupt as a moral philosophy.”
We recognize that murder and genocide, animal and human sacrifice, torture, child and animal abuse, theft, slavery, rape, forced incest, cannibalism, betrayal and lying are all immoral behaviors. And yet many believers claim it’s okay when God commits or condones all those behaviors in the Bible because he created us and can do anything he wants to us.
But isn’t that a perfect example of moral relativism? It’s immoral if humans commit or condone such acts, but if God does the exact same thing then it’s moral? That would make morality dependent on whom you are, not what you do…which is moral relativism.
LikeLike
June 29, 2022 at 1:09 pm
No one is saying that God can do whatever He wants. He is the Good. His nature is the Good. He can only do what is good. Why, then, for example, can God take human life but humans cannot? It’s not because God can do evil if He wants because of His authority. It’s because He is the creator of life. He can do with His creation what He wants. Humans are forbidden from murdering people because we did not create humans. It is not ours to take. This is no different than a parents setting a curfew for their kids, but not abiding by the curfew themselves. The curfew does not apply to parents because parents and kids are not situated similarly. Or consider a painting. If I paint a masterpiece, it would be wrong for you to deface it. If I choose to do so, however, that is my prerogative because I am its creator.
LikeLike
June 30, 2022 at 2:22 am
Hmm. I really don’t think someone who deliberately commits or condones murder and genocide, animal and human sacrifice, torture, child and animal abuse, theft, slavery, rape, forced incest, cannibalism, betrayal and lying can reasonably be considered good. But I think the reason we don’t accept such behaviors isn’t because that’s what God wants—after all, members of every religion and no religion share much of the same morality. If God were the source of our morality, we would expect Christians to generally behave more morally than, say, atheists, rather than less. It’s apparent that moral behavior is part of our evolved nature as social beings.
I also don’t think that God could get away with his behavior if it weren’t for supposedly being all powerful. He can do what he wants not because he is the creator of life, but because nobody can bring an all-powerful being to justice. Who among us would willingly allow someone who ordered babies to be ripped from their mothers and hacked to death to go unpunished, even if he claimed to be the creator of all life? If and when we create our own general artificial intelligence and we end up torturing it, we will be morally in the wrong…because morality is about what you DO, not whom you ARE. God could only get away with torturing people because he’s unstoppable, not because he has some innate right as a creator to needlessly inflict suffering on his creations.
LikeLike