Louis Truehill
Phil 70, Tu/Th 10:30-11:45
Dr. Scherbart
10/4/18
Hobbes and the Social Contract
In this essay, I will be describing the great work of Thomas Hobbes and his ideals of the social contract. In order to provide more explanation on the social contract, I will compare the two moralities between what Hobbes believes and what Plato believes. Hobbes believes that morality is decided amongst human agreements. On the other hand, Plato believes that morality is much more extended. Second, I will then describe Hobbes’ notion of the state of nature and how he advises individuals to defer away from it and rather become more influenced by the social contract theory (contractarianism). Third, I will explain the experiment of the prisoner’s dilemma and how it is utilized. Finally, I will address the possible problems that Hobbes’ contractarianism might face.
1. Comparison of Hobbes and Plato
According to the great philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, he mentions that in order for morality to be grounded, agreements between one another must be maintained. If agreements can be socially constructed, then that will eventually lead to what can make the state legitimate. An agreement is made amongst people because it is believed that it will potentially make lives better and easier. This ideal is also known as contractarianism. However, to contrast Hobbes’ notion of what grounds morality, Plato believes that the basis of morality is the world independent from humans. In other words, Plato trusts that morality must be independent from the mind.
Hobbes uses the words “truth-makers”, and “truth-bearers” to further represent his stance on contractarianism. According to Dr. Ryan Scherbart, a professor at Chabot College, he mentioned in his lecture that truth-bearers are beliefs and/or propositions and truth-makers are factors including the world, reality, and factual evidence (Scherbart). For example, if a person were to construct the idea that lettuce is healthy, and share it with others, his thought and his announcement would be a truth-bearer. The people around him would be a truth-maker.
2. Hobbes on the State of Nature
Hobbes describes an idea known as the state of nature. With the state of nature available, there is no rules to govern how people should live, and essentially, people can do whatever they please. In his book, Leviathan, Hobbes mentions that life in the state of nature would contain “continual fear, and violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes, Ch 13). A benefit of living in the state of nature is that everything would be without consequence. The basis of the state of nature is essentially the survival of the fittest; it is a society where concepts like murder, robbery, etc. is acceptable because it would be everyone living for themselves. However, a disadvantage of living in this state is the possibility of anarchy.
One main reason why Hobbes wanted society to transition from the state of nature towards the social contract, is because it would establish a level of security. If everyone were to live for themselves, then there would be no type of security for the people living. The advantage of living under a social contract is the establishment of security. People would have laws for regulation, and a type of government to maintain how people would live. The disadvantage is that people would have to sacrifice a portion of their freedom in order to live in a more civil society.
3. The Prisoner’s Dilemma
In Dr. Scherbart’s philosophy 70 class, we mentioned the notion of the prisoner’s dilemma, which represents the unstableness of human trust. For example, two men are arrested for a crime. Both of the individuals have been brought in by detectives with concrete evidence for a conviction. The men are separated and placed in two different rooms. Both of them are offered the same deal, which is if one testifies for the prosecution against the other, and the other stays silent, then he would go free while the silent one is pinned with a 10-year sentence. If both were to remain silent, then they both would be sentenced for 2 years for a much smaller crime. If each man were to testify against the other (speak against the other), then they would both be imprisoned for 5 years.
In the prisoner’s dilemma, it becomes situational because each prisoner is offered the same choice between betraying the other, or remaining silent. One version of the prisoner’s dilemma represents the state of nature in which the two men are separated and placed into two different rooms. They have no form of communication with one another, so the pressure increases the difficulty of the decision. The second version of the prisoner’s dilemma represents the social contract in which the men are not separated and they have to make some kind of agreement in order to reduce the sentence of the crime.
4. What problems does Hobbes' contractarianism face?
Some of the problems that arise with Hobbes’ contractarianism are the sacrifice of freedom, and the contracts not pertaining to everybody living in the same society. In order for an agreement to be made, both sides have to be willing to sacrifice something to advance for the better. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Contractarianism, written by Ann Cudd and Seena Eftekhari, Hobbes’ theory has a problem with helping others because it helps others only because of self-interest. Cudd argues rather, that people should help others, because it is inherently good (Cudd and Eftekhari, 12). This is a problem that arises when dealing with a social contract.
A repetitive problem that arises in Hobbes’ theory is that contractarians claim that a contract must be made fairly, but fairness does not exist until the contract is made. The contradiction is that we can not simply act with something before it is even written (Cudd and Eftekhari, 7). There is no perfect contract that can be made, so when a contract is devised initially, the process of development is recurring. Another viewpoint that goes against Hobbes’ social contract is the account for those with disabilities. The benefits can not be equally reciprocated back to society because of a setback such as a disability. The social contract is discriminatory because it does not safeguard all of those in living in the same society.
Ideally, Hobbes’ pushed for a society that would eventually live under the social contract because it was an establishment of security. Under the social contract, life would be more easier and better for society. Life in the state of nature would be “poor, nasty, brutish, and short” that is why Hobbes wanted people to transition away from the state of nature. The various forms of the Prisoner’s Dilemma were discussed and how each form represented either the state of nature or the social contract. Finally, the problems that the social contract contains were mentioned in order to represent how not all of ideals are favorable.