Contractarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #37

Summary

This script explores the concept of contractarianism through the lens of Thomas Hobbes' 'state of nature,' where life is depicted as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' It posits that morality arises from rational individuals' self-interest in cooperation, leading to the formation of contracts for mutual benefit. The script also delves into the Prisoner's Dilemma, highlighting the complexities of trust and cooperation in society, and how contractarianism shapes our moral obligations and the legitimacy of societal systems.

Takeaways

• 🌳 Hobbes' 'state of nature' is a hypothetical scenario where there are no rules, and life is described as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'.
• 🛡️ In a world without rules, there is an abundance of freedom but a lack of security, leading to a constant state of fear and potential for domination by the strongest.
• 🤝 Rational individuals would opt for a civil society that offers security over absolute freedom, trading some freedoms for the benefits of cooperation and order.
• 📜 Morality, according to Hobbes, is not inherent but emerges from agreements made by free, self-interested, rational individuals for mutual benefit.
• 🥑🥭 An example of a simple contract is trading avocados for mangoes, which increases security and variety in life, illustrating the concept of contractarianism.
• 🔄 Contractarianism suggests that moral acts are those that adhere to the agreements made by individuals, and these agreements are made to improve life quality.
• 🏢 Implicit contracts, like obeying laws without explicit agreement, are part of societal participation, with the understanding that benefits received imply obligations.
• 🚦 The Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates the complexities of cooperation and self-interest, showing that rational individuals might not cooperate even when it is beneficial.
• 🤔 Trust is crucial for cooperation; without it, individuals may choose to defect from agreements, prioritizing personal gain over collective benefit.
• 👥 Defection is less common among known associates due to social consequences, highlighting the importance of relationships in maintaining contracts.
• 📐 For a contract to be valid in contractarianism, individuals must be free and better off within the system created by the contract than outside of it, excluding systems like slavery.
• 🔄 Contractarianism allows for moral flexibility, as morality is determined by agreements that can evolve and change over time.

Q & A

What is the 'state of nature' as described by Thomas Hobbes?

The 'state of nature' is a hypothetical condition without any governing rules or laws, where life is described as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' Hobbes believed it would be a state of constant fear and conflict due to the lack of security and order.

Why did Hobbes think that a world without rules would be chaotic?

Hobbes believed that without rules, everyone would be constantly on guard and the strongest or most aggressive would dominate through fear. Even the strongest could be overthrown by collectives of weaker individuals, leading to a perpetual state of conflict.

What does Hobbes propose as the solution to avoid the chaos of the 'state of nature'?

Hobbes proposed that rational people would opt to trade some of their natural freedoms for the security offered by a civil society, achieved through a social contract.

How does Hobbes view the origin of morality?

Hobbes did not believe morality was an inherent or natural concept. Instead, he proposed that morality emerges from agreements made by free, self-interested, rational individuals who find more benefits in cooperation than in conflict.

What is the concept of 'contractarianism' as discussed in the script?

Contractarianism is the view that morality is based on contracts or agreements made by individuals. Right acts are those that do not violate these voluntary agreements, which are made with the belief that they will improve the quality of life.

Can you explain the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' and its relevance to contractarianism?

The 'Prisoner's Dilemma' is a scenario where two individuals have the option to betray each other for personal gain or cooperate for mutual benefit. It highlights the challenges of cooperation and trust in contractarianism, showing that even though cooperation is beneficial, individuals might still choose to defect for personal advantage.

What are 'implicit contracts' and how do they relate to the concept of being a citizen?

Implicit contracts are agreements that individuals are expected to follow without having explicitly agreed to them. For example, natural-born citizens are expected to follow the laws of their country without having explicitly agreed to them, unlike immigrants who become citizens through an explicit contract.

How does the script explain the social cost of violating contracts among people who know each other?

The script suggests that there is a strong social disapproval for those who violate agreements, especially among known individuals. This social cost acts as a deterrent for breaking contracts and is crucial for maintaining trust in society.

What are the conditions for a contract to be valid according to contractarianism?

For a contract to be valid, the contractors must be free and not forced into the agreement. Additionally, they must be better off within the system created by the contract than they would be outside of it.

How does contractarianism view the flexibility and change in morality?

Contractarianism allows for the flexibility and change in morality as it is determined by the agreements of the individuals within a society. If the group consensus changes, the contracts and hence the morality can be modified.

What is the implication of the statement 'morality can change' in the context of contractarianism?

The statement implies that morality is not fixed or absolute in contractarianism. It is subject to change based on the evolving agreements and understandings of the individuals within a society, reflecting a dynamic and adaptable moral framework.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Hobbes' State of Nature and the Birth of Morality

This paragraph introduces the concept of a 'state of nature' as described by Thomas Hobbes, where there are no societal rules, leading to a life that is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' It explains that in such a state, the lack of security and constant fear of others' aggression would make life miserable. The paragraph then discusses how rational individuals would opt for a civil society with rules to ensure security, trading some freedom for safety. Hobbes' view on morality as a social contract is introduced, where morality emerges from agreements made for mutual benefit, exemplified by a simple trade agreement between neighbors with different fruit trees. The concept of contractarianism is explained, where morality is based on not violating the agreements made by free and rational individuals.

05:01

🤝 The Prisoner's Dilemma and the Challenge of Cooperation

The second paragraph delves into the complexities of cooperation as illustrated by the Prisoner's Dilemma, a scenario where two individuals have to choose between betraying each other for personal gain or cooperating for a collective benefit. It outlines the dilemma where both individuals, if rational, would betray each other to minimize their own prison time, leading to a suboptimal outcome for both. The paragraph highlights the importance of trust in agreements and how defection, or breaking contracts, is more common among strangers due to the lack of social consequences. It also touches on the conditions necessary for a valid contract according to contractarianism: freedom in entering the contract and an overall improvement in life due to the contract. The paragraph concludes by contrasting contractarianism with other moral theories, emphasizing its permissive nature where morality is created through agreements and can evolve as society changes its mind.

Keywords

💡State of Nature

The 'state of nature' is a hypothetical condition in political philosophy where there is an absence of government and laws. In the video, Thomas Hobbes describes this state as one where life is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,' emphasizing the lack of security and the dominance of fear and aggression among individuals.

💡Contractarianism

Contractarianism is a moral and political theory that posits morality and social order arise from voluntary agreements among individuals. The video explains that according to this theory, right acts are those that adhere to the agreements made by free, rational individuals, which they believe will improve their lives, as exemplified by the avocado-for-mango trade scenario.

💡Implicit Contracts

Implicit contracts are social agreements that individuals are expected to follow without having explicitly consented to them. The video uses the example of natural-born U.S. citizens who are expected to obey laws without having agreed to them, unlike immigrants who go through an explicit contract during the citizenship process.

💡Explicit Contracts

Explicit contracts are agreements that are consciously and willingly entered into by individuals. In the script, the concept is illustrated through the process of citizenship for immigrants, where they explicitly agree to follow the laws of the land as part of their naturalization.

💡Prisoner's Dilemma

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a scenario in game theory where two individuals have the option to either cooperate or betray each other for personal gain. The video describes this dilemma to highlight the complexities of cooperation and trust in contracts, where rational self-interest may lead to defection despite the collective benefit of cooperation.

💡Defection

Defection refers to the act of breaking a contract or agreement in favor of one's own interests. The video discusses defection in the context of traffic during rush hour, where individuals may choose to violate social norms for personal advantage, leading to negative outcomes for all.

💡Cooperation

Cooperation is the act of working together towards a common goal, often highlighted as beneficial in contractarianism. The video explains that cooperation is most effective when trust is present among the parties involved, as seen in the contrast between the Prisoner's Dilemma and social norms among acquaintances.

💡Freedom

Freedom, in the context of the video, refers to the natural liberties individuals possess in the state of nature before entering into social contracts. It is traded for security and the benefits of civil society, as rational individuals recognize the advantages of cooperation over the chaos of unrestrained liberty.

💡Morality

Morality, as discussed in the video, is not seen as an inherent or divine construct but rather as a social construct that emerges from agreements among rational individuals. It is the set of rules that individuals agree upon to facilitate cooperation and mutual benefit, as opposed to a fixed set of principles.

💡Security

Security, in the video, is presented as a key motivation for individuals to move from the state of nature to a civil society governed by contracts. It represents the safety and stability that comes from mutual agreements and cooperation, as opposed to the constant fear and vulnerability of the state of nature.

💡Rational Individuals

Rational individuals are those who act based on reason and self-interest, seeking the most beneficial outcomes for themselves. The video emphasizes that it is the rationality of individuals that leads to the creation of contracts and morality, as they weigh the benefits of cooperation against the costs of conflict.

Highlights

Thomas Hobbes described a world without rules as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short', suggesting that such a state of nature would be a nightmare.

In the state of nature, without rules, people would be constantly on guard, leading to a life dominated by the biggest bully through fear and aggression.

Rational individuals would opt for a civil society with some freedoms traded for security, according to Hobbes' contractarianism.

Morality, according to Hobbes, is not inherent but emerges from agreements made by free, self-interested, rational individuals for mutual benefit.

An example of a simple contract is trading avocados for mangoes, symbolizing the birth of morality through cooperation.

Implicit contracts, like following the law without explicit agreement, are part of our societal obligations due to the benefits we receive.

Contractarianism posits that right acts are those that do not violate the agreements we make for better living conditions.

The Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates the complexities of cooperation and the potential downfall of rational self-interest without trust.

Defection, or breaking contracts, is common among strangers due to the lack of trust and social consequences.

Cooperation is more prevalent among acquaintances due to the social costs associated with violating agreements.

For a contract to be valid, the parties must be free and better off within the system created by the contract than outside of it.

Contractarianism rules out systems like slavery, as no one would be better off within such a system, making it illegitimate.

Morality in contractarianism is not 'real' until agreed upon by individuals, making it the most permissive moral theory.

Morality can change with the modification of contracts, as seen in law changes and shifting social norms.

Contractarianism holds individuals to a high standard for keeping the agreements they choose to make, emphasizing personal responsibility.

The episode concludes with an introduction to virtue theory, the next topic in the moral theory unit.

Transcripts

Imagine a world without rules. Nothing is illegal.

Nothing is immoral. Everyone is absolutely free.

This might sound like utopia to you, but according to 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes, it would actually be your worst nightmare.

Hobbes called this hypothetical time, with no rules to govern our behavior, “the state of nature.”

And he described life there as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

And he was probably right.

The land of do-as-you-please sounds great – until you realize that everyone else is also doing as they please.

That’s when you find out that you have an abundance of freedom, but you do not have any security.

Because, when everyone’s constantly watching their backs, whoever is the biggest bully will be able to dominate, simply by fear and aggression.

And even if you happen to be the biggest bully, life’s not going to be any better, because when enough weaker bullies get together even the strongest can be overthrown.

So, this type of system – a sort of anti-system, without rules and without order – is a terrible way to live.

And Hobbes pointed out that rational people would want to change the system.

They’d trade in some of their natural freedoms, in exchange for the security offered by civil society.

The key to saving the world from chaos, he said, was a contract.

[Theme Music]

Hobbes didn’t think there was anything deeply real about morality.

It’s not written in the stars, or waiting to be discovered by reason, or handed to us on stone tablets by the divine.

Morality, he believed, is not primitive, or natural.

Instead, Hobbes proposed, anytime you get a group of free, self-interested, rational individuals living together, morality will just emerge.

Because free, rational, self-interested people realize that there are more benefits to be found in cooperating than in not cooperating.

Like, say I have an avocado tree growing outside of my house.

I consider it mine, and I can take all the avocados I want from it.

You have a mango tree, and you can take all the mangoes you want.

But sometimes avocado-have-ers grow tired of avocados, and mango have-ers grow tired of mangoes.

This might actually be a bad example because is there any such thing as too much guacamole?!

But sometimes you just really want a mango smoothie.

And in the state of nature – where there are no rules – the only way for me to get a mango is to steal it.

And the same goes for you and my avocados.

So we found ourselves living in a world where we steal from each other, which means that both of us are always on edge, and we see each other as enemies.

But remember, we’re rational, so we find a better way.

We make an agreement. We promise not to steal from each other.

And we promise to trade, avocados for mangos.

Now we have more security and a more interesting diet.

What we have created is a contract – a shared agreement – and suddenly, morality is born.

This view, espoused by Hobbes and followed by many today, is known as contractarianism.

Contractarians say that right acts are those that do not violate the free, rational agreements that we’ve made.

And we make these agreements because we think they’ll make our lives better.

So basically, we trade in some freedom for the benefits that come out of cooperative living.

Avocado-for-mango contracts are pretty straightforward.

We both want something, and we make an explicit contract that we both believe will result in us being better off.

But some contracts aren’t so obvious.

We’re also bound up in a lot of implicit contracts – ones that we’ve never actually agreed to, but sort of find ourselves in.

For instance, natural born citizens of the United States never agreed to follow the law of the land.

Immigrants who become citizens do; they have to engage in an explicit contract as part of the citizenship process.

But for the rest of us, we are expected to follow all sorts of rules that we never agreed to follow.

Now, if you try to explain to the cop who pulled you over that you never agreed to the speed limit, so you’re not bound to follow it, well, I’m pretty sure you’re gonna get a ticket anyway.

And that might seem really unfair to you.

But contractarians will tell you that it’s not.

Because you reap all kinds of benefits from being a part of this system.

You get to drive on safe roads, drink clean water, and if your house catches on fire, people will show up and do their best to put it out.

Rights imply obligations, by Hobbes’ thinking, so when you take from the common pot – by enjoying the goods that the system provides – you are also expected to pay in.

That’s what happens when you pay taxes, and when you show up for jury duty, and when you accept the punishment for violating the rules – even rules that you disagree with.

So, contracts are a pretty brilliant way for making society not just survivable, but possible.

They save you from a situation that Hobbes described as a “war of all against all,” and puts you in this idyllic land where everyone cooperates.

But can you really count on cooperation?

To explore that question, let’s head over to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy.

In the 1950’s, Canadian mathematician Albert W. Tucker formalized an idea that had originally been posed by American game-theorists Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher.

Since then, many versions of this dilemma have been presented.

But Tucker’s scenario goes like this:

You and your partner in crime are both arrested and put in separate rooms for interrogation.

The prosecution doesn’t have enough evidence to convict you for your main offense.

The best they can hope for is to give you each a year in prison on a lesser charge.

So, the prosecution offers you each a deal: If you rat out your partner, they’ll let you go free.

But now you and your partner face a dilemma.

If you both remain silent, you know you won’t get any more than a year in prison.

But if you’re enticed by the thought of doing no time at all – all you have to do is squeal, and you’ll go free while your partner does three years.

The problem is, enticed as you are by the offer, you know that your partner is thinking the same thing.

And if you each give up the other, then the prosecution will have enough evidence to send you both away for two years.

So now you think, no, it’s better to stay silent.

That way, you’ll only get the one year – as long as you can count on your partner to reason the same way.

But what if he doesn’t?

What if you stay quiet and your partner’s the rat?

Well, that means you’re doing three long years, while he gets away scot-free.

Facing that unpleasant prospect, if you’re both rational agents, you’ll be drawn to the conclusion that looking out for yourself is the best option,

because it carries with it the prospect of either zero or two years, rather than the one or three years that you might get if you stay silent.

Thanks, Thought Bubble.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma shows us some interesting wrinkles in contractarianism.

Even though it was rational for both prisoners to squeal, they’d actually have been better off if they could count on each other to stay quiet.

Cooperation pays, but only when you trust your fellow contractors to keep their agreements.

This is why a lot of defection occurs among strangers.

Defection is where you break the contract you’re in – whether you agreed to be in it or not – and you decide to look after your own interests, instead of cooperating.

For example, the next time you’re driving during rush hour, you’ll see rampant defection.

Instead of following the rules, waiting their turn, and merging when they’re supposed to,

people will speed down the shoulders and try to sneak up to the head of the merge lane – which ends up slowing down everybody.

But, you see much less defection among people who know each other, because when you flagrantly violate a contract among people you know, it comes with a heavy social cost.

There’s a special kind of moral outrage for somebody who freely makes an agreement they didn’t have to make, and then violates it.

Because, our whole society is built on the trust that people will keep their word.

But, there’s another important part of this theory – one we haven’t mentioned yet.

And that is: In order for a contract to be valid, the contractors must be free.

You can’t force someone into a contract.

And the contractors must be better off in the system that the contract makes possible, than they would be outside of it.

Sure, there are probably some rules that don’t work in your favor all the time, but the system, overall, must make your life better than if you were on your own.

So contractarianism necessarily rules out things like slavery.

Any given person will always be better off outside a system that enslaves her, so that type of system could never be legitimate, even if it’s agreed upon by the majority of the group.

And maybe you’ve noticed something else about this moral theory – something that’s distinct from, say, the divine command theory, or kantianism, or even utilitarianism.

With contractarianism, there is no morality until we make it up.

There’s nothing fundamentally “real” about it.

But it becomes real, as soon as you and I agree that it is, because once we agree to particular rules, they become real, and binding.

So in a way, contractarianism is the most permissive of the moral theories we’ve looked at.

Morality is determined by groups of contractors, so whatever they agree to, goes.

Which means, of course, morality can change.

If, as a group, we change our minds, we can simply modify the contract.

Which is what happens, explicitly, when we change laws, and implicitly, with shifting social mores.

But contractarianism is still pretty rigid in some ways.

If you take on an obligation, you have a duty to keep it.

This theory starts with the assumption that we get to choose what responsibilities we incur, so we’re all held to a high standard for keeping the agreements we choose to make.

Next time, we’re gonna conclude our unit on moral theory with a look at virtue theory.

Today, though, we learned about contractarianism.

We talked about Hobbes’ state of nature, and the implicit and explicit contracts.

We learned about the Prisoner’s Dilemma, and the benefits, and costs, of violating contracts.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.

You can head over to their channel to check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like:

It's Okay to be Smart, Physics Girl, and Shanks FX.

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

with the help of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.