Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Classical Social Contract Theory (Lecture series, 'Political…
Classical Social Contract Theory
Lecture series, 'Political Obligation Beyond Contract'
Do we have an obligation to obey the law? (what question is classical social contract theory trying to solve?)
Defining more precisely what this question is asking
Law: rules applying at the level of the state. They are universal, applying to everyone in the jurisdiction, non-volutnary (you can't choose whether they apply to you), and obligatory- you have to obey them (or face consequences)
'Ought' is there a moral ought, beyond the pragmatic/practical 'ought' of obeying the law?
(assuming that we have a morality- leave amoral stuff ought of this!)
'we'= all moral agents
"If you are a moral person then you are obliged to obey the law"
This is a conditional statement, and so its truth depends on the truth conditions between the antecedent and consequent, not either alone- so it needs to be the case that you cannot be a moral person+ yet not be obliged to obey the law
So we need to establish an account of morality that explains why we need to obey the law
#
#
"We will consider four classes of moral theory, according to which people are obliged to obey the law: 1. Classical Social Contract Theory – you are obliged to obey the law because you have consented to do so 2. Hypothetical Social Contract Theory – you are obliged to obey the law because you would consent to do so, under the right conditions 3. Fair Play Theory – you are obliged to obey the law because you have benefited, in a certain way, from others obedience to it 4. Natural Duties – you are obliged to obey the law because you have a basic duty to do support the institutions of justice
We will also consider (philosophical) Anarchism, the claim that we have no special moral obligation to obey the law."
Classical Social Contract Theory is an attempt to do this
Classical Social Contract Theory (Hobbes)
#
View of morality as something designed to solve human problems- a social construct...
Hobbes: before morality- the state of nature
Problems in the state of nature lead to morality being needed to remove us from the state of nature
If people don't attack others, then they are vulnerable to attack- only a state can give us peace and security
So, the weak rely on the strong to keep everyone in order
This actually gives us all what we want- a peaceful and secure existence
in the state of nature, people face a dilemma- they want to follow the natural law, however survival depends on immoral conduct
the solution to this is the social contract- the surrender of power to a ruler or ruling class so that appropriate power can control the state of nature- in return the ruling class have power over everyone else
Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679
Lived in a time of religious and political turmoil- the state of nature is for Hobbes primarily a hypothetical, but is approached during times of anarchy- such as during the political chaos of Hobbes' life
Hypothetical Social Contract Theory (Rousseau)
Objection to Hobbes: according to Rousse, Hobbes misunderstands the state of nature by imaging what would happen to the people in his current society were the social contract removed. In order to truly understand the state of nature, we must look at not what happens when the social contract is removed from those who have experienced it, but at what happened BEFORE there was any social contract
Rousseau thinks that there would not be the chaos that Hobbes thinks- people would not desire so much, and would not face scarcity in the way Hobbes thinks- people would be free and would live peacefully- people are naturally sympathetic
According to Rousseau, people live in more complicated societies in order to have a better quality of life- but this causes social problems- so we need a social contract
More complex societies with more goods create an artificial state of scarcity and competition which leads to the problems that Hobbes describes
According to Rousseau, this is negative as well as positive as we lose our freedom
Rousseau coined the term 'the tyranny of the majority'- both monarchies and republics may take away our freedom
we can have the best of both worlds by movng towards a state based upon consensus
Hobbes+ Rousseau criticise each other by disputing the exact conditions in the state of nature and how we should understand this, but they agree in justifying the social contract by the state of nature
Solutions criticising the state of nature/ not involving a state of nature to justify the social contract
Edmund Burke
I am electing to not know this
Mary Wollstonecraft
I am electing to not know this
David Hume
I actually do need to know this- more notes to follow from the next lecture on this I think?
Hume objects that we have no choice, as individuals born in a society, to not consent to being part of the state- there is nowhere for us to go if we refuse
ship analogy- we might as well say, says Hume, that a person on board a ship is free to leap into the water if he does not like the rules of the ship- this is no choice at all, and so it is incorrect to say that the man in this case has consented to be ruled by the ship's rules. so with the state, says Hume
Hume's objections to the social contract theory
Classical Social Contract Theory doesn’t seem to describe the laws that people are supposedly obliged to obey. They should be universal, non voluntary and coercive, so isn’t suggesting that they are ‘founded altogether on voluntary consent’ sedition, if not insanity? (OOC 475)
Classical Social Contract Theory implies that we have consented to be governed by laws but nobody has ever asked us for this consent, nor can we be said to have a free choice to leave our country given how cost this would be. We are like a mariner ‘carried aboard asleep’ and yet subject to the dominion of the ships master. (OOC 119)
• These are great objections. However, in order to see exactly how they work we need to understand their real target – the theory of John Locke
Locke's theory is vaguely similar to Hobbes, but he thought that some morality would remain the in the state of nature- the state of nature is not automatically a state of war- we would police ourselves and each other, and people wold respect each other's rights tyo all enforce the natural law
this would naturally lead to people agreeing to form small political entities that are genuinely based on consent, and in which policing is done by indivuduals
and this would lead to the emergence of larger political entities in which this individual policing action is not a sufficient deterrent- necessitating a government more powerful that can more effectively enforce the law
also difference in tacit vs actual consent
Locke’s argument
• P1 – People are obliged to obey the laws of any government that upholds the natural rights of the members of a political society to which they consent to be a part
• P2 – People give their tacit consent to be part of a political society so long as they hold any possessions or enjoy any part of that society ”whether it be barely travelling freely on the Highway’ (ToG 348)
• C – We are therefore obliged to obey the laws of our governments, although we may seek to replace those governments if they no longer uphold and protect our natural rights
file:///C:/Users/Rebecca/Downloads/IA%20P2%20Political%20Obligation%202.pdf