Week 10: Hobbes and the Social Contract

Week 10: Hobbes and the Social Contract

Lectures 9 and 10
Hobbes and the Social Contract

9.1 Preliminary:
If you are interested, the entire text of Hobbes's Leviathan is available on the net at:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html
References for this lecture:
Fred D’Agostino “Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract,” in Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.Stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism-
contemporary/ accessed October 1st 2006
Sharon A. Lloyd “Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy,” in Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.Stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
Ann Cudd “Contractarianism,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/
Another excellent resource for philosophy material: www.epistemelinks.com

9.1 Review
So far we have covered two of the four dominant strands in moral philosophy- Utilitarianism, and Kant’s Deontology (next week we cover the fourth- Virtue Ethics). As should be clear, the Utilitarian command to ‘maximize the good’ is widely considered to be both too demanding and too impartial. In particular, arguably, it is too demanding on the human capacity for benevolence. It also clashes with basic intuitions about fairness and justice. On the other hand, Kant’s morality, although it captures our intuitions concerning justice and fairness, founders on various bizarre and counterintuitive implications. Further, it presupposes what could be a rather naïve conception of human nature.
Kant presupposes a very close relationship between the human capacity for reason, and morality. Kant thinks that, if only people use their reason, they will freely and rationally choose to act morally. But is that really how moral reasoning works? Further, there seems to be a certain other-worldliness in both Utilitarian and Kantian thought. Neither Utilitarianism nor Kant dwell on how morality plays out in the real world. A social aspect of moral behaviour appears to be missing from both accounts. For Hobbes, morality only makes sense in a social context.

9.2 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).

Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588, just as England feared an invasion by Spain. Of the date of his birth, he wrote that “fear and I were born twins.” Hobbes wrote his most important philosophical and political works during the English Civil War, which ran from 1642 until 1651. Chaos and destruction are, therefore, always in the background of Hobbes’ thought.
Hobbes’s intellectual life was also rather dangerous. His most famous and important text is Leviathan, or The Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth, published in 1651. This, and other politically radical texts, lead to threats to Hobbes’s life, and so he went into exile in France for eleven years. A particularly dangerous idea was that the British Royal Family cannot rule without consent of parliament, a view based on his philosophical teachings. (This principle was accepted some time after Hobbes’ death and has been enshrined in British law ever since). Hobbes’s philosophy is explicitly atheistic, so a law passed in 1666 banning atheism and profanity led to even more problems. Hobbes escaped punishment through the intervention of the king. (His books had to be printed in Amsterdam to escape the censor, and his books were banned in France until the end of the 18th Century).
Hobbes’s thought was considered dangerous in his own time, and still appears shocking today. His ethics in particular is based on a very pessimistic conception of human nature. Hobbes may revolt us, but keep in mind that we cannot reject a theory simply because it is ugly.
(One point you might like to think about: Bentham was a trained but non- practicing lawyer; Kant was always an academic, and never traveled far from his home town, whereas Hobbes got involved in politics and some very dangerous situations. Hobbes’s ethics and theory of human nature is distinctly gritty and realistic. Nietzsche – who himself was an army nurse at one point – said that all philosophy is a highly abstracted autobiography. Do you think this is true?)
So what, then, is Hobbes’ theory of morality? Simply this: morality is a solution to a practical problem: how can self- interested (egoistic) people live together harmoniously? The answer: mutual coordination, in accordance with a contract, under continual threat of punishment if they dare break the rules of that contract. In other words, morality is team- work amongst people who have to be forced to play fairly. Morality is therefore a mutually beneficial behavioral stratagem.

How did Hobbes get to this conclusion?

9.3 Hobbes’s Ontology
‘Ontology’ just means “theory about what things exist.” So if you think that only chairs exist, that’s your ontology. If you believe in spirits, Gods, souls that exist independently of the body and so on, you have a dualist ontology, as you think that two kinds of things exist (physical things and ‘spirit- things’). If you believe that only physical things exist, you are a monist (you think that only one kind of stuff exists) and a materialist. Hobbes is a materialist. He does not believe that a God exists that punishes sinners and rewards virtue. Human life is, fundamentally, no different to that of machines.

We may not say that all automata (engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life? For what is the heart, but a spring: and the nerves but so many springs, and the joints so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body. (Leviathan, Introduction I).

Hobbes is also uninterested in meta-ethical questions, such as the ‘absolute truth’ of moral beliefs or concepts. (Hobbes often refers to the ‘laws of nature,’ but nobody is really sure what he meant by this). Morality is the science of balancing the desires and motives of a population of egoists in a harmonious fashion. Humans are, for Hobbes, a sort of machine that has particular desires and motives. In particular, we each want to avoid pain and death. He also thinks that the fear of death is so fundamental that he considers it a part of our nature that cannot be changed. Nobody, he thinks, can be expected to sacrifice themselves, no matter what the circumstances.


9.4 The State of Nature
Because of this diagnosis, Hobbes thinks that, without a strong government to control them, individuals would live a hellish existence; what he calls “constant war.” His proposal, in the text of Leviathan, is a doctrine of the foundation of legitimate societies and their governments. Not all philosophers would agree that this is necessary for harmonious living. Jean- Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) for one, thought that people in the State of Nature would be peaceful. (A lot of people- anarchists-who advocate anarchy (statelessness)- believe that we’d be better off without a government). Hobbes gives four reasons as to why anarchy would necessarily be bloody and chaotic.
(See Rachels EMP:142-143).

a). We all need the same things. (Food, shelter, clothing).

b). There is a scarcity of resources. (An incidental thought: this root cause of competition is especially prevalent in the Temperate Zones. Is it a coincidence that the societies that originated in the Temperate Zones- the most politically and technologically complex- have come to dominate those everywhere else?)

c). “The Essential Equality of Human Power.”
Some people are smarter and stronger than others, but even the strongest person can be brought down. (Conversely, even the weakest in intellect and physical power can coordinate great force against their intellectual and physical superiors). So- we can never avoid fighting with other people if nobody can control the situation.

d). We are not limitlessly altruistic. (Hobbes’s Theory of Human Nature).
Like Kant, Hobbes assumes that people are basically rational. Unlike Kant, he assumes that people are basically selfish. We are also partial- if we care about anyone, we care about those closest to us. Altruism is not a natural instinct, he thinks. Hobbes also assumes that everyone fears death and pain.
Why does Hobbes think that people are so hostile? He anticipates this objection: for those that may find such assertions strange, “let him therefore consider with himself, when taking a journey, he arms himself, and seeks to go well accompanied; when going to sleep, he locks his doors, when even in his house he locks his chests. Does he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions, as I do by my words?”(Rachels TRTTD: 53). Note that Hobbes is not condemning mankind: he insists that he is merely describing things as they are.
Hobbes concludes with perhaps the most famous statement made by a British philosopher. In a constant state of war (by which he means the ever- present threat of war),

There is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear., and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. (Rachels TRTTD:53).

(Think of how life is in places that have no Rule of Law, as we understand it. Is it a match with Hobbes’s description?) For Hobbes, we want peaceful lives because we fear (or ought to fear) the alternative- a short, paranoid life that ends in violent death. For peaceful productive lives, we need social order. We cannot have social order without rules. We cannot have rules without authority to enforce those rules. Authority cannot exert itself without the force of arms (“covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all”). To establish this order, the story goes, our ancestors made a Social Contract. All members of society agreed to establish a government in order to enforce various guarantees- that nobody will harm each other, that people honor agreements, and so on. To be moral, on this picture, is to follow the whole set of rules that facilitate social living.

9.5 A Cultural Point
Hobbes is widely considered the father of modern, in particular British, political theory. With Hobbes we have a clear expression of the idea that a government is nothing more than an instrument for coordinating the preferences of the population. The State is just a glorified traffic system. The theory is opposed to the idea that the State is some sort of object of veneration (as it tends to be in some German philosophy, such as that of Hegel or Fichte). It is also completely opposed to Fascism and other forms of Totalitarianism.

9.6 A Legal Point
If only those activities which upset the social order will be banned by the Social Contract, any activity which does not harm or interfere with the interests of others will not be considered immoral. (What sorts of activities might be considered immoral by some, that do not qualify as immoral, for Hobbes, do you think?).

9.10 Deeper Implications.
The contrast with Kant’s ethics is clear. Whereas for Kant, we are moral because we are free and rational, for Hobbes we are moral because we fear pain and death. Hobbes actually says this in a very direct way: “The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death [desire of comfort and hope of obtaining it]…reason suggesteth [suggests] convenient articles of peace” (Rachels TRTTD: 54). Morality, therefore is merely convenient for us. If we lived in the State of Nature, we would continually fear violent death. We live in society because we fear the pain and chaos of the State of Nature. Because we live in a society, if we break the rules, we constantly fear punishment by the legal system. So- under the veneer of civil society lurks the ever- present fear of the alternatives.

9.11 Under What Circumstances can Morality Exist?
Hobbes thinks that, because civil society is essentially a team sport, and morality are the rules of the game, you cannot be moral in a place where nobody follows moral principles. Morality is a socially constructed reality. In the Congo, or in the midst of a civil war, you cannot be moral. (You might want to debate this. If a single UN or red Cross worker is trying to help others in a place where society has collapsed, and they are in a constant state of danger, are they being moral, or merely taking unnecessary risks? Your answer will tell you what sort of moralist you are).

9.12 The Prisoner’s Dilemma
In the State of Nature, our collective rational self- interest creates a situation where our actions make life more unhappy for everyone. The Prisoner’s Dilemma illustrates this paradox (Rachels EMP:145-149).


You and a friend have been arrested. You both know about the other’s guilt. Being rational egoists, you and your friend want to get out of jail as soon as possible. You act independently of each other, and you cannot communicate. What should you do?
(Clue: What sorts of rules do criminal groups abide by? And why do they have such rules?). As Rachels explains, the situation is paradoxical, as the rational thing to do is to confess, regardless of what the other person does. But the optimal solution is that both of you remain silent.
. As Rachels notes, a Prisoner’s Dilemma situation has the following properties.

1). It is a situation where people’s interests are affected not by what they do but what other people will do.
2). It must be a situation where, paradoxically, everyone will end up worse off if they individually pursue their own interests rather than simultaneously doing what is not in their own individual interests.

If this seems a little strange and abstract, ‘mass prisoner’s dilemmas’ are very common. Examples:
1). Depleted tuna stocks in the Pacific Ocean
2). Water supply problems in Adelaide, Australia
3). Driving with your headlights on in Seoul, until recently.
4). Paying taxes.
5). Any given environmental problem.

(Incidentally, these sorts of problems cause major problems for Act- Utilitarianism. If we assess every action on what trivial impact our own actions may have on the environment etc, and everyone thinks the same way, the consequences would be disastrous).

A simple response: the question “what is in my best interests?” presupposes a narrow perspective which is not ideal for complex group strategies. The question “what is in our best interests?” appears to be the more appropriate question to ask in ethical matters.



What You Need to Know
You need to know what the Social Contract is, and why Hobbes thinks that it is necessary.
You need to understand what Hobbes’s Theory of Human Nature is
You need to know why he thinks life without government would be “endless WAR.”
Homework:
a). Who has the more realistic moral psychology (that is, how people think about morality)- Hobbes or Kant? Are you moral out of a sense of universal duty, or out of an implicit agreement that we should cooperate?
b). What rules do you think the Yakuza follow?
c). Do you think the Yakuza have a social contract? Why, or why not?
d). Do you think morality can be reduced to prudence? If not, why not?




Lecture 10
Hobbes and Contractarianism

To recap:
10.1 Advantages of the Theory

As was clear from the last lecture, the Social Contract theory succeeds where Utilitarianism and Kantianism can appear paradoxical and excessive.

10.2 An Implied Liberalism

According to Social Contract Theory, morality consists in the set of rules governing how people treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow. Hence, only rules that facilitate social living will be necessary- such as rules outlawing murder, assault, fraud etc. The implication is that such activities as sexual promiscuity, prostitution, homosexuality, perhaps drug use, are not considered wrong (if they are, there needs to be some explanation as to how the activity disrupts social functioning).

10.3 A Straightforward Explanation for Moral Behaviour
Why be moral, for Social Contract theory? Because it is to our advantage to follow society’s rules. Rachels: “Our steady compliance is the reasonable price we pay in order to secure the compliance of others.” Rachels EMP p.150.

10.4 A Straightforward Explanation for Justice and Punishment.

If a person breaks the rules, they release us from the obligation to treat them as equals. They have broken the implicit reciprocal agreement of the Social Contract. Rachels EMP p.151.

10.5 The Social Contract Theory makes Meta-Ethics Redundant
Morality is simply the rules of the ‘game’ of social life. In other words, morality is merely an agreement. Talking and worrying about whether moral beliefs are ‘facts’ or not, or whether it is ‘really true’ that murder is wrong, become as meaningless as asking if it is ‘really true’ that you can’t touch the ball (unless you are the goal keeper) in soccer.


10.6 A Plausible Defense of Partiality

Recall that Utilitarianism is impartial to a degree that seems unreasonable. If it turns out that my death will save the lives of five others, Utilitarianism requires that I die. Hobbes thinks that this violates a very basic human desire- to not be dead. If my life is in danger, Hobbes thinks that it is permissible for me to do anything to stay alive. By the same token, it is unreasonable for the State to demand of me the sacrifice of my own life. Such an act – a ‘heroic’ act- is supererogatory- it goes above and beyond the morality of duty to others. This is because we follow the rules of society purely because they are to our own advantage. Writes Rachels, the Government “cannot exact a sacrifice so profound that it negates the very point of the contract.”(EMP:151).

10.7 A Plausible Defense of Civil Disobedience (by a Group Oppressed at the Institutional Level).

In a civil society, we all escape the State of Nature and enjoy basic rights under the Rule of Law. So it is rational for us to respect the law. But what if we were members of a group of people that was routinely persecuted, perhaps even hurt and killed, by the police, and ignored by the court system? As it does not benefit us to honor the social contract, it does not make sense for us to follow the rules. We may choose to violate those specific rules that we consider unjust. This was the thinking of Martin Luther King Jr. (A more extreme attitude was adopted by Nelson Mandela, head of the African National Congress, the main group responsible for opposing Apartheid in South Africa). Writes Rachels:

For when they are denied a fair share of the benefits of social living, the disenfranchised are in effect released from the contract that otherwise would require them to support the arrangements that make those benefits possible…it is to the benefit of Social Contract theory that it captures this point so clearly (EMP: 155).

During his trial for crimes of terrorism, this is what Mandela had to say on the subject:

I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.

Nelson Mandela, Rivonia Trial, Pretoria Supreme Court, 20 April 1964. Source: http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html

Problems with Hobbes

10.8 Hobbes’s Theory of Human Nature
Hobbes considers people as basically selfish, and does not consider people capable of altruism. The only motive for moral acts is that it is useful to us. One could ask if this is excessively pessimistic. (Could any humanitarian charity function if this was true?)


10.9 Hobbes’ Politics
Hobbes believed that the ruling power should be absolute. Political power could not be divided or limited (as it is in the United States). Hobbes apparently believed that democracy could not work, as democratic states were too weak to defend themselves. (He came to this view following a study of Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War, which describes a Greek democratic state being conquered by a stronger, non- democratic adversary).
Also disturbing is Hobbes’ belief that a ruling power had to use fear to enforce compliance. So long as a ruler can argue “at least the country under my rule is better than a return to the State of Nature,” they can justify all sorts of abuses of human rights.
This is where we find ourselves in deep water. Some of Saddam Hussein’s arguments during his trial (which is continuing at the time of writing) sound very much like Hobbes’s reasoning. Hussein was a terrible ruler, but he always insisted that he had to use a strong hand to keep his country (made up of rival ethnic groups) from descending into civil war. This is the frightening possibility: what if he was right? But isn’t this just leading to acceptance of Fascism?



10.10 The Social Contract Theory is Reductionist

The Social Contract theory defines morality in the terms of a mutually beneficial behavioural stratagem. It is reductionist as it defines morality in non- moral terms. We usually think of concepts such as legitimacy and obligation as being moral concepts. But, for Social Contract theory, they are turned into non- ethical concepts, such as ‘acceptance based on prudence.’ So, this is the big question- is morality just prudence? Is all of our morality just like that of Kant’s ‘honest shop- keeper,’ who always gives correct change to little children?
(Are there any counterexamples you can think of?)

10.11 The Social Contract is Restrictive

Only free men can negotiate; prisoners cannot enter into contracts.
Nelson Mandela

Certain people and entities cannot enter into a contract for mutual benefit. Rachels discusses the case of animals and mentally handicapped people. Hobbes himself states that “to make covenants with brute beasts…is impossible.” Rachels therefore concludes that the basic idea is flawed. But there are deeper problems here. Some people might be simply banned from the contract, and some people might be more useful to us against their own will than as free people to whom we have duties. Recall that, long after Hobbes died, many Westerners, including philosophers (including Hume and Kant) debated whether Africans or women were capable of reasoning- that is- of entering contracts. As Patricia Williams, an African- American Law professor, argues:

Contracts require independent agents who are able to make and carry out promises without the aid of others. Historically, blacks and women were not considered as equal members- irrational and independent. [like animals]. Entire classes of people can therefore be removed by the notion of contract, and thereby excluded from justice.


Patricia Williams “On Being the Object of Property,” in The Alchemy of Race and Rights, Harvard University Press, 1991. Cited in Ann Cudd “Contractarianism” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/ accessed Oct 1st 2006

Again, the question is: if we reduce morality to prudence, what goes missing?

10.12 The Social Contract is a Fiction
The Social Contract, and the original transition from the State of Nature to the establishment of Society, it is argued, is a fiction. The social contract was never made. Even if it actually happened (assumedly in every society), was it really unanimous? What of those individuals who did not sign up? Were those people therefore not required to act morally? If there was some first transition from one ‘morality’ to another, what happens to the non- team members? (During the ‘Social Contract’ – inspired French Revolution, this conflict was resolved by simply executing or exiling all the members of the old regime).
Further, even if all the members of some ancient society freely accepted the Social Contract, how is it that each generation is obliged to honor the same agreement?

We can reply to these objections in the following way. Sure, there is no explicit Social Contract- it was never something we had to sign at school, for example. It was not openly stated. But there is an implicit social contract. Rachels writes: “each one of us accepts the benefits from the fact that these rules are followed.” This is not fictitious. (Rachels uses the game analogy here-EMP.157). Other suggestions- the Social Contract should be understood as a metaphor for social order, or as a thought experiment.

10.13 What is the Social Contract supposed to be an agreement on?
It is not clear in Hobbes if the agreement should be about specific rules, or on institutions. One modern philosopher, John Rawls (A Theory of Justice, 1971) has tried to combine Kantian ethics with Social Contract. His view is that the Contract should be based on the type of society you would like to live in, assuming you were totally ignorant about what your talents or abilities are. The idea is that we should choose the society which best benefits the least advantaged people.


What You Need to Know
You should be able to explain the main advantages and attractions of Social Contract Theory.
You should be able to explain the main problems of Social Contract Theory.

Homework:
Read the section on Virtue Ethics in Rachels EMP:173-187, and the section from Aristotle in Rachels TRTTD:37-43.
Questions:
1). What are the traditional Japanese virtues?
2). Think of some very moral person you know of. What virtues do they have? Of those virtues, which ones are innate, and which ones, do you think, are made better through habit?
3). Kant thinks that the virtues cannot make you a good person- you could always use your ‘virtues’ to be a better villain, he thinks. Is he right? Are there any virtues that could not possibly make someone a better villain?

ct