17th October 2013 AS Philosophy Jez Echevarría Philosophy Unit 1 Why should I be moral? Criticisms of Hobbes Locke’s Social Contract theory Criticisms of Locke 17th October 2013 AS Philosophy Jez Echevarría

Objectives To consider Criticisms of Hobbes’ contract theory To consider Locke’s alternative social contract theory To consider criticism of Locke and Social Contract theories in general

Criticisms of Hobbes 1) The “sovereign” might be able to maintain order but might be brutal. 2) A “sovereign” might be stronger if they have not only physical strength but moral strength too. 3) A contract based on self interest would not guarantee that everyone would be treated fairly. 4) The system would be inherently unstable if the “sovereign” does not maintain peace and security and a stronger faction can then legitimately overthrow it – a rebellion is justified only if it succeeds, since might is right – An act would only be right if it succeeds.

John Locke-(1588-1679) English Philosopher Also a doctor Empiricist (but believed in God) Considered to be the Father of Classical Liberalism His work was very influential upon the drafting of the United States’ Declaration of Independence

Locke’s Social Contract Writing 50 years after Hobbes, Locke based his theory on the natural law Locke saw the natural law as a set of inalienable rights conferred on to us by nature, or derived from our status as human beings. They are rights we all share and do not depend on government. This implies that state of nature is a state of perfect freedom, in which human beings can order their actions and dispose of their possessions as they see fit. This natural condition is governed by reason, where one shows a respect for others’ freedom and possessions The contract then protects those rights and to appoint an authority (government) to settle disputes and act a referee.

Locke’s Social Contract Locke assumed that there was an abundance of natural resources on the planet so disputes would be few and far between All human beings are born with these inherent rights which he considered universal, inviolable and owed to every human being by the very virtue of being human. These basic rights were later incorporated into the American Declaration of Independence, which began: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

Locke’s Social Contract The right to life The right to own property The right to freedom and liberty The liberty of thought and feeling, The liberty of expressing opinions, The liberty to do what we want as long as we do not harm others The Liberty to meet other people as long as we don’t harm others BUT…. Do the participants in this come to the table to create a set of values, or do they bring pre-existent values?

Criticisms of Locke’s Social Contract Where is the real, empirical evidence to show that human nature is really like that? Hobbes’ and Locke’s ideas of human nature differ diametrically! Far from demonstrating universal “self-evident” truths, they represent the cultural and normative values of their time (for Hobbes it was the aftermath of the Civil War, while for Locke it was the advent of The Enlightenment and reason) Any social contract therefore is merely a convention and relativistic, just preferences and recommendations based on a particular socio-economic and cultural influences and subject to change and challenge.

Equality and Justice a thought experiment In pairs, have a look at the scenario in front of you Come to a decision about what you are going to do and be prepared to justify it to the class

Criticisms of Contractarianism Even if scientific agreement could be reached on human nature, it would still not validate a moral contract. E.g. Dawkins claims that our genes are engaged in a selfish competition to replicate themselves and fight off opposition from other genetic pools to ensure their survival – so would we want to devise a moral social contract based on that fact? We would be devising a value from a fact, but would that mean that facts would always dictate values? I might be genetically disposed to be selfish, but I might consider such behaviour wrong and moderate my own behaviour.

Criticisms of Contractarianism Peter Singer (1946-present) Australian Philosopher Big on animal rights Curiously though, he is pro-choice in the abortion debate and even justifies infanticide as the only really consistent approach, compatible with abortion

Criticisms of Contractarianism He would claim that any social contract ends up being speciesist as it does not take into account the needs of animals Animals cannot sigh up to the contract, so are we then free to treat them in any way we like? What about other humans who cannot make the contract because either they are slaves or they are vulnerable or they are incapable (Children? Especially given his stand on infanticide) Singer claims that contract theory might explain the origins of our ethical system, but does not justify our moral values beyond the idea of consent. If we want an ethical system that protects some of our most cherished values, it needs to based on something deeper than egoism and self-interest.

What have I learnt today? To consider Criticisms of Hobbes’ contract theory To consider Locke’s alternative social contract theory To consider criticism of Locke and Social Contract theories in general