so this video on ethics explores the social contract theory of Thomas Hobbs and the basic idea is that we need moral and legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary poor nasty brutish and short so whenever students tell me that they are amoral or they don't believe morality exists I start them with social contract theory because it gives a really simple framework for understanding the origins of some moral rules as well as a self-interested reason for being moral so let's take a look at this in the Leviathan 1651 Thomas Hobbs asked us to imagine a state of nature in which there's no legal or moral rules so in this state of nature each person has the ability to kill others and each wants limited resources like excellent food and shelter right now in this state of nature it quickly becomes a state of War you know in which we're constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals so if in the state of nature a really brilliant individual builds a beautiful house and productive machines and fruitful Farms others will come with and this is Thomas hobbs' quote others will come with forces United to dispossess and deprive him not only of the fruit of his labor but also of his life or Liberty and this Invader again is in the like danger of another okay so in short the state of nature is one of fear violence and distrust Hobbs explains the state of nature would have and this is his quote no cultivating of the earth no navigation nor use of the comfortable 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 literature no society and which is worst of all continual fear and danger of violent death and the life of man will be solitary poor nasty British and short so the question here is how do we humans escape this preoral and pre-legal state of nature which is awful the best thing to do according to Hobs is to get together and create moral and legal rules that will help everyone flourish everyone must agree to these rules they must agree to a sort of social contract for example they should agree to give up their Liberty to kill others so they can receive the benefits of civilization again the social contract theory is composed of moral and legal rules that help everyone flourish we create property rights and Farms flourish we create moral and legal roles against stealing and investment and Industry Blossom we create militaries in a police force and the fearful Natural State dissipates so self-interested and rational people that is egoist should follow these rules because it's in their self-interest to do so so the idea of Thomas Hobbs which was revolutionary in the 17th century is that morality is not a Heavenly or Divine matter it's simply a matter of creating rules that maximize your self-interest again we have egoism so we should create roles that lead to human flourishing because General flourishing causes individual flourishing a rising tide lifts All Ships now at this point it's interesting to think about whether social contract theory implies the invention or discovery of moral and legal roles and I think it's both right so morality is analogous to the invention of the wheel we can create Square Wheels triangular Wheels circular Wheels but we discover which one works best the circular one and so it is with morality cultures can create all sorts of rules but some rules lead to human flourishing and some don't some pull us ever towards the dreaded state of nature right and so um morality is both invented and discovered okay so how do we use social contract theory to judge moral opinions and practices now since morality is partly discovered social contract theory gives the framework and tools we need to judge the moral practices of all cultures so for example in the elements of moral philosophy James Rachels explains why Martin Luther King Jr was justified in non-violently Breaking the Law according to social contract theory he is only obligated to obey the law because we gain certain benefits and return for accepting certain burdens again the benefits are living in a society instead of a state of nature now since African-Americans were not receiving the benefits of living in society they had no obligation to obey the law under social contract theory so James Rachel's concisely summarized how social contract theory justify Civil Disobedience and here's his quote this line of reasoning suggests that civil disobedience is not an undesirable Last Resort for socially disenfranchised groups rather um civil disobedience is the most natural and reasonable means of expressing protest for when the disadvantaged are denied the benefits of social living they are released from the contract that would otherwise require them to follow society's rules this is the deepest argument for civil disobedience and the social contract theory presents it clearly and forcefully so that's it that's a social contract theory let's look at some criticisms some weaknesses of it next so the weaknesses of social contract theory notice how social contract theory like ethical egoism reduces morality to self-interest that is the reason you should be moral is because it's in your self-interest to live in society instead of a state of nature but can your morality be reduced to self-interest so to answer this question you know you can attempt to imagine scenarios where you think and act is good but it's not in your self-interest for example imagine you have the choice of saving 10 children or yourself if you can imagine such scenarios and you think it's best to save the children then not all of your morality can be reduced to social contract theory because not all of your morality is self-interested right now we can I can give you other examples of some of your moral beliefs that probably aren't based on self-interest but I think Hobbs might have a response here he might argue that some of your moral sensibilities arise only after you live in society so according to Hobs societal living creates altruistic habits of mind and feeling that did not that do exist as strongly if at all in the state of nature so it would not surprise Hobbs to find that some moral beliefs are not self-interested under his view social contract theory explains the self-interested origins of both self-interested and altruistic morality so for him the Paradox is that altruism arises from self-interest and I'll leave it to you the way the merits of his view here's a another criticism and this one comes from John Lock who argued the state of nature is pre-legal but not preoral this means people have moral rights before any government arises and these moral rights are based in quote natural laws and quote the god of nature therefore the purpose of governments and contracts is to protect basic rights not create them now for example the United States Declaration of Independence is derived from locks understanding of moral rights because it speaks of rights given by the laws of nature and Nature's God so the Declaration reads 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 that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed okay so hobbs' social contract theory does not fully explain morality because morality exists before soci society and governments are formed governments may get their power from the consent of the Govern but moral rights exist before any consent is given so if you agree with Lock's analysis then hobbs' social contract theory may explain where Munch IMM morality comes from but it doesn't explain the whole of it okay a third criticism of social contract theory is that it weakens moral motivation it allows one to more easily justify immoral acts so for example imagine that Mr Baggins believes cheating is wrong however as a social contract theorist he only believes it's wrong because he desires the benefits of social living he wants to avoid the state of nature in this case Mr baggin could rationalize cheating because one act of cheating will not lead to a lack of General trust or the collapse of society so he easily justifies a prima fasi immoral act here and you know most people feel there are powerful reasons for being moral but social contract theory provides little motivation little reason according to social contract theory an act is morally good if it's in your self-interest and will not cause a downfall of society so according to this Theory there's nothing wrong with murder stealing and torturing kittens for fun as long as you know you will not get caught okay again the criticism is that social contract theory doesn't explain the whole of your morality it does not explain why you think these acts are wrong all right a fourth criticism of social contract theory is that it misrepresents human nature in a state of nature so Hobbs portrays humans as atomistic isolated selfish individuals who constantly seek their self-interest but rouso and others disagree with this view of humanity for rouso the state of nature is more harmonious than Society because people live in small communities with abundant resources humans naturally feel pity and love an altruism in the state of nature according to Roso and others most people in their natural states are actually Noble Savages and the formation of property and contracts are a Corruption of this morally ideal State not the conditions that create morality okay so a related criticism comes from feminists like bear who argue the contract only explains the ideas of Rights and obligations it doesn't really capture what it means to be a fully moral person a fully moral person is not an isolated self-interested economic contractarian rather a fully moral person cares for caring sake a fully moral person is altruistic as well as self-interested a fully moral person recognizes their dependence on others and this recognition deepens their morality in short this criticism is based on the idea that the Western and the legalistic idea of a contract cannot fully explain all aspects of what it means to be a fully moral in both nature and civilization so my conclusion is that although social contract theory has some weaknesses it's a powerful theory that gives a clear reason for being moral most of the time perhaps we should be moral because it's in our self-interest to live in a society instead of state of nature okay so let's consider these questions real quick number one and these are discussion questions if you were in my classroom we would discuss them in the state of nature why would there be no farming literature and so on and the answer is perhaps we would not have the time or confidence to create them number two can you think of any examples in history or literature where hobbs' awful state of nature existed well perhaps in war torn countries or you might mention Lord of the Flies or The Hunger Games you know there's a a lot of interesting possibilities there number three what's wrong with cheating according to social contract theory uh cheating decreases trust a trust that holds Society together and protects us from the state of nature however the theory does not clearly explain why cheating is wrong if it's in your self-interest and it will not cause the collapse of Society number four according to social contract theory why should you be moral well you should be moral because it's in yourself interest Society is better than the state of nature number five according to social contract theory morality is ultimately based on self-interest is that correct in your moral opinion are there some acts that are immoral even though they're in your selfin and basically this is a question about ethical egoism right and you can see you can read up on that or see the video on that for more number six are some groups of people like minorities infants and animals left out of the social contract because they can't give consent is this a problem for the theory and maybe the answer is maybe perhaps infants the mentally impaired animals posterity cannot give their consent to this contract the contract is based on the idea that rational and self-interested people will give up some of their power to get the benefits of society but how can this contract account for moral duties to individ idual who cannot benefit us or give their consent it's a good discussion number seven why what does it mean to give consent to the social contract have you consented to the rule of your government so the answer I guess is consent is a tricky concept did you do you give consent by continuing to live in this country it's a good discussion all right number eight evaluate this criticism there's no no actual physical contract so social contract theory is false okay well I think we need not believe social contract theory to be a historical account to take it seriously the point is that it's an implicit contract a way of understanding the origin and purpose of moral rules and legal rules and maybe that's how we should look at it and then finally I get this sometimes is it logically consistent for a person to believe in God and social contract theory and I think it depends on the type of religion perhaps God created moral rules so each person could flourish if there is a God perhaps God is a social contractarian right so whatever you think again I think it has some weaknesses but it's a powerful theory that gives us a clear reason for being moral most of the time again we should be moral because it's in our self-interest to live in a society instead of a state of nature which of course is solitary poor nasty brutish and short thanks