Weiye Loh's Library tagged Contractarianism →  View Popular, Search in Google

In the Republic, however, Socrates is somewhat more cautious about the idea of a social contract. In that dialogue, his friend Glaucon makes the argument that laws are put in place so that people are restrained from committing injustices, which they would naturally be inclined to do if there were no consequences to their behavior (this is the famous problem of Gyges’ ring). Socrates replies that justice is worth having for its own sake, and that just men are happy men

I think it’s obvious why Socrates does not contradict himself between the two dialogues, as there is no logical inconsistency in saying that one is bound by the laws, and yet that justice is a good in its own right (though it does raise the question of what one is to do when confronted with unjust laws).

Still, social contract theory in philosophy doesn’t really get off the ground until the big three: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.

Hobbes is, of course, famous for his view that life in the “state of nature” for humanity was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Consequently, Hobbes thought that people rationally decided to enter a social contract in order to be able to pursuit their life in safety

Hobbes also concluded that people need a strong power to keep them in order, the Sovereign

According to Locke, pre-contract human beings were able to live in complete freedom without others interfering in the conduct of their affairs (you could think of this as a type of libertarian paradise). The problem, according to Locke, is that the state of nature can easily devolve into a state of war, as soon as disputes arise about private property. If that happens, might would make right, since there is no civil authority capable of resolving disputes. Hence the necessity of government.

Locke also maintained that should the government devolve into tyranny, the people would have reason — and arguably even a moral duty — to revolt against it. Which, as we know, led to the original tea party (the one in Boston).

Rousseau had not just one, but two theories of social contracts, one actually meant to be an historical account, the other an argument for how things should be instead. The state of nature for Rousseau was characterized by peaceful, largely solitary and uncomplicated lives, with nature providing what people needed. Problems started to occur with population growth, because needs became more pressing, people started living in groups, and they introduced division of labor. The latter in turn made leisure time possible (horror!), which caused people to compare themselves to others and develop feelings of envy (as always, it’s hard to keep up with the Joneses). The coup de grace for the human species was the invention of private property (take that, libertarians), which further encouraged greed and inequality. A natural social contract emerged from this situation which, while claiming fairness, is actually an instrument of the powerful to maintain their privileged position

Rousseau famously argued that the way to achieve a fair social contract is by direct democracy, which can be practiced only in small groups. That is because people in small groups know each other and it is easier to hold individuals to their promises, as well as to make them accountable for their behavior. This means that the modern state is for Rousseau precisely the way human beings ought not to live.

Rawls’ conception of human nature is that we are rational and compassionate people. His emphasis on rationality (and on the concepts of duties and rights) have contributed to label his political philosophy as “Kantian,” though I really don’t think that too much of a big deal should be made of this (he is certainly no utilitarian, however). Rawls’ thought experiment in social contractarianism is exceedingly original: he invites us to imagine that we are about to enter a discussion on how to structure society while being positioned behind a “veil of ignorance.” That is, we don’t know anything about what sort of people we are going to be once the veil is lifted and society gets moving. We may be male, female, or transgender; black, white or some other ethnicity; smart or not so smart; physically powerful or weak; have access to a large inheritance or not; have a lucky genetic constitution or one prone to disease; and so forth. The question, then, becomes what sort of society would a rational human being agree to if s/he had no access to that sort of personal information.

  

philosopher	initial state	theory of human nature	type of contract
Hobbes	war of all against all	people are rational egoists	strong central power
Locke	complete liberty to pursue life	people seek freedom, but may act with force	division of legislative, judicial and executive powers
Rousseau	idyllic, simple life, few needs	people are accountable when they know each other	direct democracy in small groups
Rawls	veil of ignorance	people are rational and compassionate	society based on the two principles of justice

The first thing to note about contractarianism is that it usually begins with a particular theory of human nature.

Second, the range of solutions proposed by contractarians to the question of what structures do we want to build into our society range widely, from Hobbes’ absolutism to Rawls’ egalitarianism, from Rousseau’s advocacy of direct democracy to Locke’s views about division of powers in representative democracies.