Analysis of The Moral Imperatives of The Social Contract Theory

Social contract theory posits that individuals coexist within a society based on an agreement that delineates moral and political standards. Philosophers such as Hobbes and Rawls argue that our moral framework is derived from social contracts established by society rather than dictated by a divine entity. According to this theory, in the absence of these contracts, humanity would revert to a chaotic state of nature, or "prima materia," devoid of moral guidelines. In "The Elements of Moral Philosophy," Rachels asserts that morality consists of principles reflective of behaviors deemed acceptable by rational individuals, rooted in mutual consent. Social contracts serve as essential frameworks for fostering harmony and equilibrium within society, irrespective of implicit or explicit classifications. The validation of these contracts can take various forms, including implicit agreements, such as refraining from violence and respecting elders, and explicit agreements, like laws or classroom rules, which students adhere to in exchange for a structured educational environment.

The Foundations of Social Contract Theory

John Rawls, in "A Theory of Justice," claims that his interpretation of social contract theory aligns with the tradition established by thinkers such as Hobbes, Mill, and Kant. While social contract theory is rooted in classical philosophy, it has evolved into a modern framework for moral and political discourse. However, critiques from feminists and race-conscious philosophers highlight that the traditional social contract offers an incomplete representation of societal moral and political realities. A notable criticism is that it often perpetuates self-defeating contracts that impose restrictions based on class and privilege.

The objective of this essay is to explore the moral imperatives that characterize the social contract tradition and to critically assess the claims of Hobbes and Rawls regarding the use of limits versus qualifications in defining categorical imperatives or ethical guidelines. Additionally, this analysis will clarify contentious aspects of Rawls's and Hobbes's political theories and their distinctions from Kantian Deontology and utilitarianism.

Hobbes's Perspective on the Social Contract

Thomas Hobbes first articulated his social contract theory in "Leviathan," published in 1651 amid the English Civil War. Hobbes posited that prior to the establishment of a social contract, humanity existed in a "State of Nature," characterized by a lack of moral awareness. Life in this chaotic environment was marked by fear and selfishness, akin to a post-apocalyptic existence. Individuals lived in constant fear of violence and loss, often resorting to solitary lives driven by survival instincts. To transition into civil societies, rational individuals relinquished their rights to a sovereign authority tasked with maintaining order and enforcing compliance. This contract's primary function is to safeguard lives and property through collective governance.

One significant limitation of Hobbes's categorical imperative is the potential for absolute rulers, where subjects possess no rights and must obey unconditionally. Under this monarchic framework, Hobbes's moral obligations are bound by natural law, suggesting that if a government abuses its power, it risks being overthrown. He famously asserted that civil law derives its authority from the sovereign's commands; without enforcement, laws become ineffective. Thus, one of Hobbes's core principles is "Might is Right," reflecting the notion that power determines moral legitimacy. However, this absolutist viewpoint may lead to self-defeating contracts that serve unjust interests in political contexts.

Rawls's Approach to Justice

In contrast, Rawls introduces a more egalitarian perspective, asserting that his principles of justice are chosen by free, rational, and equal individuals operating under a hypothetical "Original Position." This construct enables individuals to establish principles of fairness devoid of bias related to their societal status, fortune, or inherent abilities. The "veil of ignorance" concept stipulates that individuals should make decisions without knowledge of their personal circumstances, fostering a more equitable framework for justice.

In this context, Rawls argues that social contracts must evolve with each generation, allowing for the adaptation of laws to reflect contemporary values while discarding outdated norms. This flexibility ensures that principles of justice can be determined without the influence of biases rooted in individual or societal contexts. The moral landscape shifts over time, influenced by cultural validation and acceptance, highlighting the dynamic nature of societal ethics.

Comparative Analysis of Ethical Frameworks

Both Hobbes and Rawls utilize natural law as a foundation for social contracts, yet their interpretations diverge significantly. Hobbes emphasizes the necessity of an absolute authority to maintain order, while Rawls advocates for a fair distribution of power and resources among individuals. The following table summarizes key distinctions between their theories:

Moreover, Rawls's interpretation of justice emphasizes the fairness of outcomes, contingent upon the actions of just rulers. By adhering to a model of empirical governance that considers the welfare of subjects, a natural equilibrium can be achieved. Although Rawls's framework allows for rationality in decision-making, it diverges from Hobbes's view by not necessarily equating rationality with self-interest. Instead, Rawls suggests that individuals can prioritize collective welfare while still pursuing their interests.

Deontological Perspectives and Social Contracts

Duty, derived from the Greek term "deon," is central to deontological ethics, where Kant asserts that rational individuals are morally bound to follow a specific set of principles, independent of outcomes. This notion parallels social contract theory, where Hobbes and Rawls invoke natural law to foster mutual obligations among individuals. However, Kant's deontological framework is rooted in divine command theory, which may limit its applicability in contemporary contexts, particularly in secular societies like the United States.

In contrast to utilitarianism, which prioritizes outcomes and happiness, Kantian ethics emphasizes the consistency of moral truths. The social contract theory, particularly in Rawls's interpretation, seeks to establish mutual liabilities through a collective agreement that maintains moral integrity. Rawls critiques Hobbes's perspective, suggesting that it compromises individual freedom by prioritizing collective contract obligations over personal utility.

Conclusion

The moral imperatives embedded in social contract theory illuminate the complexities of human coexistence and governance. Through the lens of Hobbes and Rawls, we discern differing approaches to authority, justice, and ethical conduct. While Hobbes's theory underscores the necessity of a powerful sovereign to maintain order, Rawls advocates for a more egalitarian framework that emphasizes fairness and adaptability. As societies evolve, the principles guiding moral conduct must also reflect contemporary values and realities, ensuring that social contracts remain relevant and just.

References:

• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice.
• Rachels, J. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy.